Senator to Introduce Legislation Requiring Background Checks

[Ban Hammer 13,575]

reloading data is for the round, not the barrel...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

reloading data is for the round, not the barrel...

The barrel failed, not the round. I am sorry if you find it difficult to think like an engineer.

[Ban Hammer 13,575]

The barrel failed, not the round. I am sorry if you find it difficult to think like an engineer.

i'm just glad you don't reload.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

i'm just glad you don't reload.

I have, and most of those tables are on the conservative side, to allow for variances in manufacture, for the various firearms that may use a particular round, and the variances in the reloading supplies.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

But, the hypothetical was about black powder firearms, not firearms that take modern cartridges. I used to own a couple replica cap and ball firearms.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Actually, I have known of two reproduction flintlock muzzle loader barrels that exploded due to overloading with black powder at historical re-enactments. Most re-enactments have a maximum grain load allowed in the cartridges but every now and then someone will double load or take the field with over-sized cartridges. In one of the above two cases, the musket had a flash in the pan, and instead of emptying out the contents of the barrel, or just re-priming, the re-enactor re-primed, then poured the remainder of the contents of a second cartridge down the barrel, and fired with disastrous consequences.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Kathryn41

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Actually, I have known of two reproduction flintlock muzzle loader barrels that exploded due to overloading with black powder at historical re-enactments. Most re-enactments have a maximum grain load allowed in the cartridges but every now and then someone will double load or take the field with over-sized cartridges. In one of the above two cases, the musket had a flash in the pan, and instead of emptying out the contents of the barrel, or just re-priming, the re-enactor re-primed, then poured the remainder of the contents of a second cartridge down the barrel, and fired with disastrous consequences.

If they were authentic reproductions, with Damascus twist barrels, where the barrel is formed by wrapping the steel around a mandrel, those did have the possibility of unraveling. If it was made with modern gun steel, that would probably be unlikely with black powder.

Edited April 21, 2013 by The Patriot

[Kathryn41 3,205]

If they were authentic reproductions, with Damascus twist barrels, where the barrel is formed by wrapping the steel around a mandrel, those did have the possibility of unraveling. If it was made with modern gun steel, that would probably be unlikely with black powder, but still a possibility with semi-smokeless.

I'm not sure what the actual reproductions were anymore. I knew at the time but that was a number of years ago. I keep thinking that at least one was an Italian reproduction of the 1763 or later Charleville, pretty common on the War of 1812 fields. I used to own one and I remember thinking at the time that the one that exploded was the same make as mine. (The re-enactor, btw, was very lucky and suffered only minor injuries and no one else was injured. He was severely dealt with by his unit, however, and the re-enactment community at large where firearm safety - and safety in general - is a high priority..

Edited April 21, 2013 by Kathryn41

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Blackpowder is a low level explosive under any condition. Smokeless under normal atmospheric pressures is not but can be explosive under certain conditions.

Exactly. The difference between a propellant and an explosive, can be just a matter of luck, as any model rocketeer soon realizes.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

black powder is explosive. smokeless is not - it's classified as a propellant. so someone's gonna piss off the black powder shooters now.

Correct. The morons do not know this. They do not need to.

This has -0- chance of passing. Lautenberg is a perennial producer of sh*t like this. He never accomplishes anything and this was already eliminated as a possibility in the past few elections. Non issue.

Should be good for about $11 million in donations from the fundraiser letters NRA will send out though. If you need any powder, it may be a good time to get it. I predict a big increase in sales.

Exactly. The difference between a propellant and an explosive, can be just a matter of luck, as any model rocketeer soon realizes.

Now you are going to demostrate your ignorance of ammunition components. Oh, please do! Do you have a friend that did this?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I think his thread has become more about whether modern smokeless is an explosive. My take?

Blackpowder is a low level explosive under any condition. Smokeless under normal atmospheric pressures is not but can be explosive under certain conditions.

A gentleman double loaded next to me last weekend with blackpowder. It was crazy - my ear protection was barely enough and the flame was massive out of the barrel. He sat down down for awhile after that.

I shoot 3 BP firearms currently - a 1851 Navy colt in .36 caliber, which gets 20 grains of 3f; a Remington Army in .44 which gets 30 grains of 3f, and a 1860 army in .44 which gets 28 grains of 3f. I use felt wads which I also use as a signal to myself that the chamber is charged (FYI you can't really blow up a cap and ball with too much powder as the cylinder is limited in depth unlike a rifle)

Smokelss powder is not an explosive under any conditions. Ever. It never operates at "atmospheric" pressure unless burned in the open. Not to say a firearm cannot fail when exposed to overly high pressure caused by a variety of conditions (it can and does happen) but the propellent never becomes "explosive" Explosive has a narrow definition and smokelss powder does not meet it. No more than an overfilled ballon makes you breath "explosive".

Black powder explosions in firearms are rare and typically caused by an obstruction in the barrle spearated from the powder charge. What may have happened at these reenactments, Kathryn, was that someone's wad came loose and was lodged part way up the barrel ahead of the powder. This can cause a barrel failure even with a normal powder charge. In most black powder firearms, you could fill the barrle with powder to the muzzle and cram a wad or bullet down on top of it. No harm would befall the rifle but most of the pwder would be ejected unburned and sime would burn spectacularly in the air. An old method of determining the optimum powder charge with a given ball or bullet was to fire the rifle over fresh snow. Increase the powder charge until you find unbruned powder in the snow in front of the rifle. That is the most that rifle can burn effectively with that bullet or ball. Any more is simply a waste. As long as everything is seated tight, no air space between powder and projectile (even if the projectile is only a wad) then you are good to go.

Smokeless powder operates entirely differently and contains far more energy than black powder. This is why it is possible to get velocities exceeding 4000 fps with smokelss powder and barely 2000 fps. with black powder. If the improper burning rate of powder is used it can cause pressures to rise too quickly and exceed the limits of the gun to contain it. A rupture of the gun occurs. It is not an "explosion" any more than a popped balloon is an explosion. Saying this is a misuse of the technical term. Like calling a clip a magazine. No matter how many ignorant people misuse the term, it is STILL not an explosion.

The answer is not in wikipedia.

FWIW Lautenberg could not care less. his intent is to make it difficult to won or use firearms in any way he can. The good news is...he can't.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Exactly. The difference between a propellant and an explosive, can be just a matter of luck, as any model rocketeer soon realizes.

Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. Smokeless powder is never an explosive.

i'm just glad you don't reload.

I'm not.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I have, and most of those tables are on the conservative side, to allow for variances in manufacture, for the various firearms that may use a particular round, and the variances in the reloading supplies.

Soe tables are, MOST are not.

The majority of loading tables are for modern cartrisges in modern rifles. There is no reason to be "conservative" with data for the 7mm Remington Magnum or the .30 Rem Ultra mag. Or even the .223.

With cartridges like the .45-70 which may be fired in a Ruger Number 1 made last week or a Springfield Trapdoor made in 1873, yes, it is necessary to be conservative OR list separate data for specific firearms.

If you ever actually reloaded it was many moons ago. The manuals have long been updated to reflect different firearms and what the cartridges are being spec'd for. My recent (past 30 years)manuals have no less than three different data tables for the .45-70 and three for the .45 Colt, for example. The .45-70 was a "dead" cartidge for many years, decades actually. The M1886 Winchester being the last rifle made for it in 1935. It was dormant until Ruger revived it in 1973. At the time...early 70's, the only data around was for the M1873 Springfield and even though the M1886 Winchester was much stronger, no one pushed it. By the late 70's manuals were being written to address the new firearms being made in .45-70. Likewise the .45 colt. Dead for 30+ years and revived by Ruger in the late 50s. There are a handful of cartridges for which conservative data is still published, the .30-40 Krag being one of them but they are in no way a "majority" or even more than a "very few"

The information you provide us with is 40 years old. Try to keep up if you are going to discuss the topic.

Modern cartridge data is loaded right up to industry maximum working pressure, nothing at all "conservative" about that.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The safest and most powerful low-order explosive is smokeless powder.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/april2002/mccord.htm