Have you ever blown a gun apart by shooting a reduce load in it?

[Flyboy*61]

This makes two times now that I've heard that the fast burning powders are accredited to the phenomenon. Thanks for chiming in on this.

Just because a person "has heard" it two times, doesn't make it a scientific, repeatable fact. 2.7 gr. Bullseye was "the" target load for decades, and as far as I know, still is. That's a tiny little amount! Fast powders are designed to ignite well, no matter the position in the case. The question of "detonation" first raised its head in rifles, supposedly using "light" charges of powder. It couldn't, and still can't be (afaik) replicated in a controlled environment...In a lab, with proper instrumentation, and qualified personnel. Not saying it can't, but the "question" has been around since the 1900s when Elmer Keith was doing amazing things (and blowing up a few guns) with the .38 ,44 and 45 caliber handguns. We are the recipients of his and others' experimentation, but in MNHO, best to look at wrong powders, overloads and human error as the more likely cause, in both rifles and handguns. This branch of reloading Proctology does make for some interesting discussions, though!

 

[Jack Ryan]

No.

They get blown up when the one before gets stuck in the barrel.

 

[pisgah]

"Detonation" due to low powder charge has often been claimed but it has never been duplicated in the lab, although many have tried. Even though the people who claim it has happened to them will say there is NO WAY they double-charged a case... folks, if they are human, there are MANY ways...

 

[ADP3]

Guilty as charged, or undercharged in this case. Not a handgun example, but fifty years ago I had an H&R (I think the model was 158) break-action combo gun in 30-30 with a spare factory fitted 20 gauge barrel. I wanted a light 30-30 load for feral dogs on the farm to reduce the chance of over penetration and hitting the cattle. I stayed with the 150 grain bullets but reduced the starting charge of IMR 3031 by a third. First shot when I went to sight in was a hollow sounding blooie not a blam. Smoke curled out of the breech and the action would not open. I had to beat the barrel with a 2x4 to open the gun. The primer was almost completely blown out of the case and had set back into the breech face 1/10" or so. The 30-30 barrel was undamaged but the breech face with the firing pin was too recessed for enough firing pin contact to ever fire another round. I quit experimenting with reduced charges at this point.

Best Regards,
ADP3

 

[DGW1949]

I believe the term was "detonation" and cause by a LOW dose of power, back then it was Bullseye, and 148 gr wadcutters and the PPC shooters if they tipped the gun upward, and brought it down to the sight line, the powder being a low charge like 2,0 or some such and the powder went to the rear of the case or maybe vice versa and the primer caused the powder to ignite across the top so it went off at the same time, thus "detonated"??? instead of a burn from one end or the other, excuse my interpretation as I heard it from a second source ( PD armorer) many years ago when I was at the FBI range in Philadelphia back in the mid 70s, and the gun we saw blown apart was a Colt Python....
wow that was a long time ago.......and interning as a gunsmith...

I've also heard of roughly 3 grains under a 148 lead WC doing the same thing. I think(?) it was the American Rifleman that I remember running a piece about that many years ago....At the time, I understood just enough about detonation in general to know that what it amounts to is such a drastic increase in burn rate that whatever is supposed to be burning actually explodes instead. Scary stuff if you ask me....Like I said, that was years ago. I haven't bought any Bullseye since.

DGW

 

[TheTexasRAT]

Just because a person "has heard" it two times, doesn't make it a scientific, repeatable fact. 2.7 gr. Bullseye was "the" target load for decades, and as far as I know, still is. That's a tiny little amount! Fast powders are designed to ignite well, no matter the position in the case. The question of "detonation" first raised its head in rifles, supposedly using "light" charges of powder. It couldn't, and still can't be (afaik) replicated in a controlled environment...In a lab, with proper instrumentation, and qualified personnel. Not saying it can't, but the "question" has been around since the 1900s when Elmer Keith was doing amazing things (and blowing up a few guns) with the .38 ,44 and 45 caliber handguns. We are the recipients of his and others' experimentation, but in MNHO, best to look at wrong powders, overloads and human error as the more likely cause, in both rifles and handguns. This branch of reloading Proctology does make for some interesting discussions, though!

No it sure does not prove any thing but it does help me try and understand to do my best to stay away from what ever it might be. And your take on this is much appreciated as well. The books only tell one side of the story from the author's view, but here I am getting the story from lots of different angles. There is wisdom to be found amongst many counsel. I would hate to know 100% that I reduced a load of the correct powder and blew my gun apart whether others counted it as proof or not.

And as for the wrong powder being used that is definitely a very good reason to be/stay alert at the reloading bench. And to always double/triple check every step of the powder's process.

"Detonation" due to low powder charge has often been claimed but it has never been duplicated in the lab, although many have tried. Even though the people who claim it has happened to them will say there is NO WAY they double-charged a case... folks, if they are human, there are MANY ways...

I seen a YouTube video where a guy had his pistol blow apart, and he swore that he was careful to make sure he did not double load a case. He was loading with a progressive press with an onboard powder measure. Them powder measures been known to hold back one charge and then double drop on the next one. And when processing hundreds if not thousands of rounds if complacency strikes, or perhaps the onset of brain numb setting in, at the wrong moment is all it takes for those double chargers to slip buy.

Guilty as charged, or undercharged in this case. Not a handgun example, but fifty years ago I had an H&R (I think the model was 158) break-action combo gun in 30-30 with a spare factory fitted 20 gauge barrel. I wanted a light 30-30 load for feral dogs on the farm to reduce the chance of over penetration and hitting the cattle. I stayed with the 150 grain bullets but reduced the starting charge of IMR 3031 by a third. First shot when I went to sight in was a hollow sounding blooie not a blam. Smoke curled out of the breech and the action would not open. I had to beat the barrel with a 2x4 to open the gun. The primer was almost completely blown out of the case and had set back into the breech face 1/10" or so. The 30-30 barrel was undamaged but the breech face with the firing pin was too recessed for enough firing pin contact to ever fire another round. I quit experimenting with reduced charges at this point.

Best Regards,
ADP3

Thanks for sharing this personal experience. With the seemingly lighter sound and smoke coming out the breech I am wondering if the bullet made it out the end of the barrel?

Also, for the record (being others will claim user errors are responsible for this phenomenon), are you absolutely sure that you did not over charge and positively confident that you used the correct powder?

I've also heard of roughly 3 grains under a 148 lead WC doing the same thing. I think(?) it was the American Rifleman that I remember running a piece about that many years ago....At the time, I understood just enough about detonation in general to know that what it amounts to is such a drastic increase in burn rate that whatever is supposed to be burning actually explodes instead. Scary stuff if you ask me....Like I said, that was years ago. I haven't bought any Bullseye since.

DGW

I do not think its right to blame the powder if people are going off the books with it. Seems more fair to blame the users for wildcatting around. After all all the manuals warn against reducing loads below their minimum charge weights, and as far as I can remember only Richard Lee's manual says if you are going to do it be sure and work your way down (just as one would start low and work their way up to maximum) keeping an eye out for pressure signs. Many people decide to reduce a load and do so all at once, and I think these are the people that end up in trouble. But then again that is just an opinion I have at the moment and this too may change within the winds of time.

 

[contender]

I had a discussion with a new reloader just a little while ago. He was studying pressures & looking at a couple of different manuals. We spent quite a bit of time discussing his purpose for his load,, and where he was at with it.
he's new,, and he's learning,, and by gosh,, he is asking questions before doing stuff he shouldn't.

 

[TheTexasRAT]

he is asking questions before doing stuff he shouldn't.

The part "before doing stuff he shouldn't" rang out like a beacon in the night.

Reminds me much of my youth.

 

[contender]

Yep,, this guy is a good student.
He was at my USPSA match yesterday,, and I had given him a copy of the latest Hodgdon book/manual. I got a call from him about the differences he was seeing in his books. He was studying things & wondered about the differences in it vs other books, and pressure was his topic. We spoke about this for about 45 minutes. He's a smart guy,,, and wants to be 100% safe. Luckily,, he's kinda easy to help, as his primary concerns at the moment are USPSA loads,, and looking at "power factor" levels. In USPSA,, a minimum of 125 is required for the power factor in 9mm. Most competitors try & get close to that,, yet,, allow a bit of temperature, chrono, & other variables to prevent going below 125. His ammo that I helped him work up has a PF of 129.2.
We discussed the way pressure affects things,, and especially how a small volume case like the 9mm and bullet seating depth can make a big difference in the results. We discussed gun detonations, and how it has happened occasionally. And how to prevent such events.

 

[TheTexasRAT]

We discussed gun detonations, and how it has happened occasionally. And how to prevent such events.

So just how do you propose to prevent such events?

 

[ADP3]

TTR,
No possibility of an overcharge at all or a powder mixup. My only centerfire rifles back then, 1975, were the H&R combo gun and a Winchester 670 in 30-06. The only rifle powder I used in those days was IMR 3031. I used a Lyman manual. I forget the exact edition but I bought it new in 1970. I looked at the starting load and reduced it by a third. I primed (standard CCI large rifle primers) and loaded five cases with the powder charges weighed on a Lyman scale. I only fired that one round and the bullet did exit the barrel. It hit low at fifty yards. This was my last attempt with reduced loads. I also later quit using max loads from the Lyman manual when I wrecked an old 1920's Remington model 51 .380. It's breech bolt broke into several pieces.

Best Regards,
ADP3

 

[contender]

Well, We discussed how each publisher of these manuals gets their data. By testing stuff in a controlled environment, using pressure testing equipment. And how their testing may be done via a firearm, or a universal receiver.
That's the beginning of the variables.

In general,, the best way to prevent problems,, is to study several manuals,, taking care to see HOW the company got the results, and what components they used. Then cross reference each part of the data to see what will provide the necessary results.
Example;
His load was selected by studying which powders many competitors have chosen for that caliber. TiteGroup.
His load was also selected by testing different bullet weights, and different bullets from different manufacturers but with the same weight.
His load was assembled by looking at the POTENTIAL velocity that would achieve the necessary PF he was seeking. He loaded several test loads,, that were ALL well within the parameters of all the manuals.
Then we chronoed each load, and tested for accuracy, felt recoil, and observed each empty casing for any signs of potential pressure issues. (I don't have pressure testing equipment.)
He then chose a few loads,, and began re-testing things & worked a few variables. Minor powder weight changes, and bullet seating depth. And all of this was done by staying well within the parameters of the manuals. No loads were at the bottom of the charts. No loads were at the top of the charts.

We found that about (3) different loads were quite good in his gun, and provided what he was seeking. An accurate load, mild recoil, and hit the PF level he was seeking.

So, how do we load to prevent potential detonations?
Staying well within the parameters of published data in known manuals.
Making sure each load is built where a double charge would overfill the case, making him aware of a problem. His Dillon has a "Powder check" die in it. If the level is off,, the alarm sounds off. I'm a big believer in the powder check die in a progressive press. A charge that's too light, or too much causes it to sound off.
And by assembling the ammo to where the bullets are also within the parameters of the manuals.

Basically, staying well within the manuals,, And having things in place to prevent over or undercharging a case.

Oh, and lastly,, each & every round is tested in a chamber check gauge. If there's an anomaly in the assembled round,, it will appear there.
Having followed these procedures for decades,, I've assembled well over 150,000 rounds of competition ammo for USPSA. And before I got my first Dillon,, (which I also bought the powder check die at the same time,) I would visually inspect the levels of powder in all cases to assure all were of the same volume.
I still do that for calibers that are not loaded on my Dillon.

Accuracy is the final authority for what I seek in my ammo. But I will not seek accuracy by pushing the limits of any combo of components. I choose to change components to build a load if I see any sign of approaching too much power.
Long ago,, I seriously studied a lot of detailed technical data written by Rick Jamison in Shooting Times. His column,, "Precision Reloading" helped me understand a lot about how to assemble good quality handloads. Rick also had pressure testing equipment to check his work. I also have met Rick,, and we've enjoyed discussions on handloading.
One big thing he found,, and stressed is to try & find a good balance of components. And most of his work revolved around rifles. But he also stressed that he seemed to find the most accurate AND efficient ammo where the balance of components once combined allowed for a fill of the case with powder,, that once the bullet was seated, the bullet base touched the powder. And of course,, that was also by following the manuals.

His words were proven true to me when I saw the development of Trail Boss powder to prevent SASS folks from loads that didn't fill a case enough.

And there is a difference I wish to point out.
There is a difference in a reloader & a handloader.
A reloader just follows what he finds in a book & doesn't study to see if it's the best.
A handloader is heavily involved in the serious study of HOW to assemble the best, balanced loads in any firearm SAFELY!

BTW,, even after almost 48 years of reloading then handloading experience,, I STILL study & learn as much as I can. Plus a study in explosives & burn rates hasn't hurt either.

 

[TheTexasRAT]

TTR,
No possibility of an overcharge at all or a powder mixup. My only centerfire rifles back then, 1975, were the H&R combo gun and a Winchester 670 in 30-06. The only rifle powder I used in those days was IMR 3031. I used a Lyman manual. I forget the exact edition but I bought it new in 1970. I looked at the starting load and reduced it by a third. I primed (standard CCI large rifle primers) and loaded five cases with the powder charges weighed on a Lyman scale. I only fired that one round and the bullet did exit the barrel. It hit low at fifty yards. This was my last attempt with reduced loads. I also later quit using max loads from the Lyman manual when I wrecked an old 1920's Remington model 51 .380. It's breech bolt broke into several pieces.

Best Regards,
ADP3

Strange how the bolt face showed signs of over pressure but the bullet seemingly had low velocity.

Bummer about the old Remington getting wrecked by Lyman's max load data. Did you start low and work up, or did you just go for broke out the gates?

 

[TheTexasRAT]

Well, We discussed how each publisher of these manuals gets their data. By testing stuff in a controlled environment, using pressure testing equipment. And how their testing may be done via a firearm, or a universal receiver.
That's the beginning of the variables.

In general,, the best way to prevent problems,, is to study several manuals,, taking care to see HOW the company got the results, and what components they used. Then cross reference each part of the data to see what will provide the necessary results.
Example;
His load was selected by studying which powders many competitors have chosen for that caliber. TiteGroup.
His load was also selected by testing different bullet weights, and different bullets from different manufacturers but with the same weight.
His load was assembled by looking at the POTENTIAL velocity that would achieve the necessary PF he was seeking. He loaded several test loads,, that were ALL well within the parameters of all the manuals.
Then we chronoed each load, and tested for accuracy, felt recoil, and observed each empty casing for any signs of potential pressure issues. (I don't have pressure testing equipment.)
He then chose a few loads,, and began re-testing things & worked a few variables. Minor powder weight changes, and bullet seating depth. And all of this was done by staying well within the parameters of the manuals. No loads were at the bottom of the charts. No loads were at the top of the charts.

We found that about (3) different loads were quite good in his gun, and provided what he was seeking. An accurate load, mild recoil, and hit the PF level he was seeking.

So, how do we load to prevent potential detonations?
Staying well within the parameters of published data in known manuals.
Making sure each load is built where a double charge would overfill the case, making him aware of a problem. His Dillon has a "Powder check" die in it. If the level is off,, the alarm sounds off. I'm a big believer in the powder check die in a progressive press. A charge that's too light, or too much causes it to sound off.
And by assembling the ammo to where the bullets are also within the parameters of the manuals.

Basically, staying well within the manuals,, And having things in place to prevent over or undercharging a case.

Oh, and lastly,, each & every round is tested in a chamber check gauge. If there's an anomaly in the assembled round,, it will appear there.
Having followed these procedures for decades,, I've assembled well over 150,000 rounds of competition ammo for USPSA. And before I got my first Dillon,, (which I also bought the powder check die at the same time,) I would visually inspect the levels of powder in all cases to assure all were of the same volume.
I still do that for calibers that are not loaded on my Dillon.

Accuracy is the final authority for what I seek in my ammo. But I will not seek accuracy by pushing the limits of any combo of components. I choose to change components to build a load if I see any sign of approaching too much power.
Long ago,, I seriously studied a lot of detailed technical data written by Rick Jamison in Shooting Times. His column,, "Precision Reloading" helped me understand a lot about how to assemble good quality handloads. Rick also had pressure testing equipment to check his work. I also have met Rick,, and we've enjoyed discussions on handloading.
One big thing he found,, and stressed is to try & find a good balance of components. And most of his work revolved around rifles. But he also stressed that he seemed to find the most accurate AND efficient ammo where the balance of components once combined allowed for a fill of the case with powder,, that once the bullet was seated, the bullet base touched the powder. And of course,, that was also by following the manuals.

His words were proven true to me when I saw the development of Trail Boss powder to prevent SASS folks from loads that didn't fill a case enough.

And there is a difference I wish to point out.
There is a difference in a reloader & a handloader.
A reloader just follows what he finds in a book & doesn't study to see if it's the best.
A handloader is heavily involved in the serious study of HOW to assemble the best, balanced loads in any firearm SAFELY!

BTW,, even after almost 48 years of reloading then handloading experience,, I STILL study & learn as much as I can. Plus a study in explosives & burn rates hasn't hurt either.

Sounds like all solid advise. And if one wants to be successful at something it never hurt to learn the most they can before starting, especially if it has a potential of being dangerous. You saw my the pics of my manuals so you know I am serious about learning as well. I have read through all but about ten of them to date. I also know of about ten more manuals that I will want to get. I started out watching every YouTube video on the subject until I just about watch them all and I still look to see if YouTube has new videos by filtering the search with TODAY, and still find some hear and there. And now I am picking brains here. I know of two reloader personally that I ask questions at times. They live in different states so I do not see them much.

I definitely fancy myself as a Handloader Want-a-be even when I reload cases. I never just stuff a load in cases and call it good. I too do not have pressure testing equipment but I did get a Garmin chronograph and inspect each case, check targets for accuracy, and take notes, etc... And if I do say so myself I am quite nitpicky of each aspect of the process and product.

Long Live the Handloaders!

 

[ADP3]

The Remington 51 has a semi-locked breech so I figured that a max load wouldn't be a problem, wrong decision. When I went back to the manual after the damage I read the fine print. Lyman had used an FN 1907 (9mm Browning Long) with the chamber sleeved to .380 acp for their test pistol. The FN has a much heavier slide than the average .380 so while it could handle the pressure of a max load the Remington wasn't able to. I did get about 100 rounds through it before I saw the reason it wouldn't fire was a chunk of the breech bolt was sticking out of the ejection port. The Remington 51 breakage, the H&R blooie, and two .38 special squib loads using an early Lee progressive loader have been my only reloading misadventures, and those were over forty years ago. The squibs were quickly caught and didn't cause any damage. Since 1970 I figure that I've reloaded north of half a million rounds so not a terrible track record.

Best Regards,
ADP3

 

[contender]

One thing about manuals. Older ones are great for references to older stuff. But I always replace a manual when a newer edition comes out. Often,, the material doesn't change,,, UNLESS there's a change in a component. OR,,,, More modern methods of testing for pressures are used.

I always give the advice to newer reloaders; "Stay within the most recent manuals,, don't go below or over any load. Find an alternative load to achieve good results.
And to always study your desires prior to investing in components to produce the safe requirements you seek!"

Just because "Average Joe Blow" down the street claims he can get XYZ powder to do 1,2,3 or whatever doesn't mean it's gospel. And the internet is FULL of bad info as well. I tell all; "Published data can be supported by lawyers because it was tested." Many feel that manuals are just "guidelines" and can be exceeded OR reduced. I say; "Prove THAT in a court of law when someone gets injured!"
Want more power? Buy a bigger caliber. Want less power,, buy a lesser caliber.

I know all about proof loads,, and how many guns can take more abuse than what many manuals may say is a Max load. But what happens when someone else put a marked caliber of ammo in a gun that's marked as a mate to it,, and the gun blows up, and the load exceeds the max? Or,, a reduced load well below recommended starting loads??

I saw it happen once. A guy had loaded some .38 Spl cases with a max .357 type of load. He wanted to "split the brass and then discard it." Well, the load was intended for a Ruger Blackhawk .357 he owned. A friend was shooting with him,, and asked to try the Blackhawk. He allowed it,, as he was shooting something else. He even pointed to ammo for the Blackhawk. He didn't pay attention to the friend. The friend also owned a snub-nosed S&W revolver. After a cylinder or two of the hot ammo in the Blackhawk,, the guy put some in his S&W.
The guy who owned the Blackhawk was a little slow to catch what was going on. He heard very loud shooting,, and when he turned to see what was going on,, he saw his friend shooting the S&W and realized he was using the hot .38 spl stuff. A 5 shot cylinder was fired. The gun stayed together,, BUT,,,,,,,,,,,, the frame got compression gaps. The cylinder was hard to open, and once open 4 pieces of brass were basically welded into the chambers. Only one piece of brass was removable after beating on it.
Scrap a snub-nosed S&W.
It didn't blow up,, but it sure was ruined.

 

[Laserbait]

I regularly use Hodgdons SubSonic load for 308 Win - a miserly 8 grains of Titegroup and a 168 grain bullet.

If I recall correctly, P.O. Ackley was never able to duplicate the SEE (secondary effect explosion), he was of the thought that it was due to undercharges with slow powders.

 

[TheTexasRAT]

One thing about manuals. Older ones are great for references to older stuff. But I always replace a manual when a newer edition comes out. Often,, the material doesn't change,,, UNLESS there's a change in a component. OR,,,, More modern methods of testing for pressures are used.

I always give the advice to newer reloaders; "Stay within the most recent manuals,, don't go below or over any load. Find an alternative load to achieve good results.
And to always study your desires prior to investing in components to produce the safe requirements you seek!"

Just because "Average Joe Blow" down the street claims he can get XYZ powder to do 1,2,3 or whatever doesn't mean it's gospel. And the internet is FULL of bad info as well. I tell all; "Published data can be supported by lawyers because it was tested." Many feel that manuals are just "guidelines" and can be exceeded OR reduced. I say; "Prove THAT in a court of law when someone gets injured!"
Want more power? Buy a bigger caliber. Want less power,, buy a lesser caliber.

I know all about proof loads,, and how many guns can take more abuse than what many manuals may say is a Max load. But what happens when someone else put a marked caliber of ammo in a gun that's marked as a mate to it,, and the gun blows up, and the load exceeds the max? Or,, a reduced load well below recommended starting loads??

I saw it happen once. A guy had loaded some .38 Spl cases with a max .357 type of load. He wanted to "split the brass and then discard it." Well, the load was intended for a Ruger Blackhawk .357 he owned. A friend was shooting with him,, and asked to try the Blackhawk. He allowed it,, as he was shooting something else. He even pointed to ammo for the Blackhawk. He didn't pay attention to the friend. The friend also owned a snub-nosed S&W revolver. After a cylinder or two of the hot ammo in the Blackhawk,, the guy put some in his S&W.
The guy who owned the Blackhawk was a little slow to catch what was going on. He heard very loud shooting,, and when he turned to see what was going on,, he saw his friend shooting the S&W and realized he was using the hot .38 spl stuff. A 5 shot cylinder was fired. The gun stayed together,, BUT,,,,,,,,,,,, the frame got compression gaps. The cylinder was hard to open, and once open 4 pieces of brass were basically welded into the chambers. Only one piece of brass was removable after beating on it.
Scrap a snub-nosed S&W.
It didn't blow up,, but it sure was ruined.

Many of the new manual drop cartridges that are out of main stream use to make room for the newer incoming cartridges. I have an older Hodgdon #26 manual which is the only source to find loads for a 6.5x68mm Schuler, other than Cartridges of the world which copied the data from the Hodgdon #26 manual. The Hodgdon #27 manual does not have it, nor does any other manual I have out of 70+ manuals so I have been told. Never really checked because I don't have one, but if someone did need data for obsolete cartridges these older manuals could very easily save the day with the antique guns that have fallen out of vogue.

Personally, I got into Handloading to load one bullet in a 45 Colt case that no one has ready made commercially, nor is there any load data for it in 45 Colt. From there things kind of snowballed to the point that I will be wanting to load 5 different bullets in 45 Colt, 2 or maybe 3 in 45 Auto, 1 to 2 in 460 S&W Magnum and finally morphing into a couple of wildcat rounds to boot. This is why I did not stop at just a handful of manuals being what I was wanting to know was not being found in them. And I've gotten Keith's, Ackley's, Waters', Wootters', Wooden's, Whelen's, Sharpe's, Nonte's, Townsend's, Mantunas', Rinker's, Naramore's, Harvey's, Zediker's, McPherson's, Anderson's, Zwoll's, Trzonec's, Mossaro's, Steindler's, Sweeney's, Withers', Lynch's, three NRA's, and every manufactures manuals just about, plus 4 books on Wildcatting and did not find exactly what I was looking for until I gotten Mattern's manual. And I will get at least 10 more manuals that I know of just incase they tell the story in a different way that helps me understand better. If not well then I can not say I did not try to learn as much as possible before going off script.

I admit that as soon as I could get Federal Match Grade premium Gold Primers I jumped on them. Before that, I had bought some CCI Primers just in case the Federals never made it back on the shelves. But I studied up on primers before I decided which ones I wished to use.

Now I'm not trying for higher pressures to get more speed, just the normal 14,000 psi or less. And to be sure I don't end up blowing up a regular 45 Colt revolver shooting for normal loadings I got a Ruger Redhawk to take up the slack if need be. Other wise I would have gotten a 460 S&W Magnum for added padding so to speak. And I am wanting one anyway (as was with the Redhawk. All in due time). I have acquired a Garmin chronograph and as soon as better temps come around I will be testing most if not all the 45 Colt stuff this years. Already made up all but two of the wildcat variety and will be making them up hopefully in the next month or so. Still researching for the optimal powder choice for them.

And this is why I am asking questions here to glean any and all thoughts about walking on the wild side a tad bit.

 

[TheTexasRAT]

I regularly use Hodgdons SubSonic load for 308 Win - a miserly 8 grains of Titegroup and a 168 grain bullet.

If I recall correctly, P.O. Ackley was never able to duplicate the SEE (secondary effect explosion), he was of the thought that it was due to undercharges with slow powders.

That is what all the authors that I have read say, of which believe such an event can actually occur. Yet two people here have stated that they have read that some blame the issue on fast burning powders. And then as mentioned being no one can replicate it in a controlled environment some believe it does not happen and that people either drill out their flash holes, used magnum primers, and possibly used the wrong powder, perhaps double charge, or all of the above and do not want to admit to having done so of which they made up a mythical spirit boogie man that causes guns to blow up along with all their fliers. I am convinced that too many people have reported such and some actually know what they did and did not do. So I'll try and error on the side of caution as much as possible when skirting about that allusive line. With all that said I am not really trying to go high or low just stepping off to the side a bit (see post #38).

 

[WAYNO]

I have reloaded for 50+ years. I have all my eyes and all my fingers, partially because when a manual tells me to not do something, I just don't do it.

Detonation is not always understood, but I'm sure not gonna push the limits to prove them wrong.