a scary story - blown up gun.

[mooman76]

It could have easily been stress cracked on the first two shots and went unnoticed or something as simple as a little extra fouling or who knows but it's all beside the point, it shouldn't have happened in the first place. I'm sure it will be chalked up as lesson learned. I'm glad he came forward and admitted it, instead of saying something else to save face.

 

[ord sgt]

Cliff...you said the injured man's rifle was topped with a telescopic sight. If the holes for the mounts were drilled into the barrel, that would weaken the barrel even more. We may never know if the holes were properly drilled or even if the holes went all the way into the bore.
Either way, the barrel was weakened.

Just something else to consider.

 

[Canute Rex]

The three shot deal is about obduration to the point of failure. You can bend/strain/move a piece of steel within its fatigue limits for a large number of cycles. Move it beyond its range of motion a few times and it breaks.

I remember talking with someone about the former Hudson Falls cannon works. They went out of business because it was too expensive to win lawsuits against plaintiffs who used smokeless powder in their cannons. The pattern was the same every time. An ignorant cannon buyer wants a bigger bang, uses smokeless powder. First shot, KRAKBANG! Great, but the bore of the gun has expanded near or beyond the fatigue limit of the steel. Second shot, or maybe third, the line is finally crossed and mayhem results. The survivors sue the cannon company, the expert witness takes a swab from the bore, company wins again at a cost of $25k.

You can fire smokeless in a ML *once.* Maybe twice if you are the lottery winning type. Then it is a wall hanger for all time. Or a bomb.

 

[crockett]

It looks like the parts were cleaned up- too bad. The Lyman people might have wanted to look at it and they might have been able to get some powder residue and figure out if smokeless powder was used. I'd call Lyman any how- they may still want to take a look.
Sabots are hard to seat. If there was "gunk" in the nipple area there might have been fouling in the bore. I've always been told to never have any dead air space between the powder charge and the ball (or sabot in this case). If he had trouble seating the sabot- wondering about air space? Maybe he thought the sabot was all the way down and it wasn't.
On the smokeless- if he doesn't own any- that would solve that aspect. Did he load from a flask? Is it still around to check what's in it?

 

[Jumpshot]

You can fire smokeless in a ML *once.*

Um, no. Absolutely not. Not even once. That is an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible piece of advice to be giving people. I really hope you aren't telling people that.

Maybe twice if you are the lottery winning type. Then it is a wall hanger for all time. Or a bomb.

And then telling them they might even get away with it if they try it a second time?

When I got into muzzleloaders, I didn't have anyone to teach me (no internet, either). I learned on my own by reading books. But I'm glad I went that route if this is the kind of advice being given by people. You might as well tell them they can run a red light *once* and they might get lucky and not get injured or killed, and they might even get lucky and get away with it a second time.

No. Just no.

 

[cynthialee]

You seriously did not just read his post like that did you?

No seriously? Did you think that was what he was actually saying or are you just looking to pick a fight with the man?

 

[Jumpshot]

No, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm responding to what I read. He said you can shoot smokeless in a muzzleloader once. And maybe get away with it a second time. If I read that wrong, please explain it to me. I'm willing to admit my mistake if I did read it wrong.

 

[50cal.cliff]

Cliff...you said the injured man's rifle was topped with a telescopic sight. If the holes for the mounts were drilled into the barrel, that would weaken the barrel even more. We may never know if the holes were properly drilled or even if the holes went all the way into the bore.
Either way, the barrel was weakened.

Just something else to consider.

Actually now that I think back on it the front mount was still on the barrel. The scope was laying on the ground next to the barrel. When the barrel peeled apart like a banana the rear mount went with it!

If I had to make my guess I would say the first two shots weakened the barrel and the third finished it off.

I have no idea how much powder he was shooting but it could have just as well been the first shot that done it in.

I would have loved to found out, "the rest of the story" as ole Paul Harvey used to say. The only thing I can tell you is what I know for sure and that was the sound of those shots sounded entirely different than the sound a BP rifle usually makes and that I saw the container of smokeless powder.

The damn fool was lucky that he was able to walk away with only a bruised and bloody hand!

I would love to know how he got hold of the Smokeless powder in the first place. He may have not had a clue as too what was about to happen.

Imparting knowledge as too how BP weapons work is one of the best things a fellow can teach a newbie. As stated one of the first things I always try to hit when I am instructing anyone about BP is that these type of rifles can only shoot BP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EDITED:
I am not trying to start anything here, in fact trying to mediate something!
Jumpshot I think he was being trying to funny! Not really trying to say it was a good idea to do it!

 

[bpd303]

You must have skipped the whole first paragraph. Go back and reread it to see if you come to the same conclusion. I read the post as you MAY get away with using smokeless once but by stressing the steel it WILL become a bomb.

 

[Jumpshot]

I did read the whole post.

I read the post as you MAY get away with using smokeless once...

That's not what I read:

You can fire smokeless in a ML *once.*

If I read it wrong, it's because it was written wrong.

 

[mooman76]

You're taking it too literal. He's saying you may get away with it once just like you may get away with playing Russian Roulette once. He's not saying it's a good idea or even that someone should try it.

 

[Jumpshot]

If that's the case, then I agree. But I'm not taking anything too literally, I'm responding to what was written. What was written is that you can get away with it at least once, and it sounded to me like he meant that was okay as long as you don't try it again.

Mistaken intent? I suppose, but only because he chose his words poorly.

 

[Zonie]

I don't think Jumpshot was trying to pick a fight or even make an unreasonable statement.

Reading the opening line of the post he was referring to I read:

"The three shot deal is about obduration to the point of failure. You can bend/strain/move a piece of steel within its fatigue limits for a large number of cycles."

This is saying (quite correctly) that a material can be subjected to excess stress more than once before it fails. Notice the "can be". If the stress is high enough, if can fail on the very first try.

The post he was referring to goes on to say,
"You can fire smokeless in a ML *once.* Maybe twice if you are the lottery winning type. Then it is a wall hanger for all time. Or a bomb. "

WE know the author was not meaning to suggest that someone can use smokeless powder safely but there are all sorts of people on our forum with all sorts of knowledge and experience.

There might even be a few who know absolutely nothing about gunpowder/smokeless powder/strength of materials/failure modes. (I know. Hard to believe. :grin.

Anyway, IMO, posts that could be interpreted incorrectly and this incorrect assumption could lead to harm should be commented on "to protect the innocent", so to speak.

 

[William O.]

This happened to me at Bass Pro shop in San Antonio, Texas a few years ago, while waiting in line at the gun counter. A manager walked up and asked if she could help and what was I looking for. Tell her that I needed Goex, she started and then I said, "black powder for my muzzle loader" upon hearing me turned and pointed at the smokeless powder. Had I not known better I might have grabbed a can and gone to the range. It still didn't seem to register with her when I informed her that by loading smokeless into a muzzle loader that it would blow up my gun either.

Of course this guy bought and used Smokeless on his own,so he carries hos own burden. I will never forget going into a gun shop and asking for BP. I know better than to not confuse it with Smokeless. The counter guy asked me what number I wanted. I said something like 3F. He wanted to sell me something like IMR 4350. I told him that is totally the wrong powder. He said and was serious, "well it is black in color". How many people get this kind of advice? Hard to fault a customer when he thinks he is asking the experts. Hind sight is a powerful lesson.

 

[Okie Hog]

i hope your friends injuries soon heal.

It is not often that folks use smokeless powder in muzzleloading guns. This is somewhat surprising since many thousands of new muzzleloader shooters enter our ranks every year.

Several years ago i was shown a round barrel TC .50 caliber gun (It may have been a New Englander)that was fired using patched round ball and a measured charge of a medium burning rate IMR powder (Think it was IMR 3031).

The barrel blew out at the tenon dovetail, badly lacerating the shooters finger.

Lucky,lucky.

 

[mocons]

Crockett: It looks like the parts were cleaned up...

That was my first impression also; however, if it was smokeless?
Firepole

Everyone calls it a "smokepole"; I say that where there is smoke, there is FIRE!

 

[RedFeather]

Looks like that barrel wasn't the only thing that blew up. How many replies did it take to blow this thread out of proportion? Let's see, what did we learn
A) Smokeless powder will blow up a muzzle loader
B) We can diagnose and eventually determine exactly what went wrong, the state of the shooter's mind and how big an idjit he is, all from the barest details gleaned from a second hand account, and,
C) We is all, naturally, smarter than "that guy".

Mistakes happen. Lots of seasoned, thoughtful reloaders grab the wrong powder, measures, double charge, etc. Why we constantly are reminded to check and double check, not have different powders where we are using one and don't take it for granted that the old can of Dupont 2fg Uncle Willie left in his garage twenty years ago actually contains what's on the label.

Sorry, but we should be thankful a fellow shooter ain't gone to the big rendevous in the sky. There but for the grace of God...

 

[Adui]

+1 :v

 

[David W.]

+2 :thumbsup:

 

[Cowboy2]

well said