44 mag and Chinese ammo

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by fred cook

Hmmm, sorry, not so! There are several different rounds that can and have been loaded to either pistol/revolver OR rifle levels. The little 32-20 round comes to mind along with several others. Besides, most cartridge cases won't hold a complete double charge, especially if it is a "high performance" load. Today, cartridges are supposed to be loaded to a standard pressure level (varies with the cartridge) that is safe in any firearm chambered for that round. However, that always was not the case. Assuming that the S&W had been tested with "proof" loads during the design phase it should have been strong enough to not experience the destruction shown in this example. The load in that bad boy almost had to have been something like the wrong powder or perhaps the gun had been exposed to incorrect loads earlier causing a structural defect in the cylinder. A personal experience involving some 357 mag loads that had been double charged only served to lock up/bind the movement of the cylinder when fired. Those rounds had actually been double charged, a situation that was allowed by the type of powder used which was not a normal pistol powder. I do believe that an analysis of the remaining rounds would shed some light on the cause of this blowup.

Hmm... I did say "this" round, didn't I? All commercially loaded .44 mag ammunition is safe in every revolver or rifle ever commercially chambered for that round. Bar none. Such are the benefits of SAAMI and the standards that organization has brought to the industry. On top of that, no ammunition loaded per current reloading data from recognized sources will ever result in such a catastrophic failure. That, and I defy you to find any modern reloading manual that delineates between "rifle" and "pistol" ammunition in any caliber, allowing the "rifle" ammunition greater working pressures than the "pistol" ammunition in the same caliber. It simply does not exist.

Yes, once upon a time, the Winchester lever action rounds intended for the weak old '73, and then chambered in the Peacemaker (the .32-20 you mention, plus the .38-40 and the .44-40) were very restricted by the design of and materials used in those guns with regards to allowable pressures. With the advent of smokeless powder and the much stronger '92 Winchester, it became apparent there was some performance being left on the table with these rounds. Winchester then began loading "high velocity" smokeless rounds in these (originally black powder) chamberings that were intended for the '92 only. Many referred to these, quite erroneously, as "rifle" rounds. They were not, however, safe in all rifles - most notably Winchester's own '73, the rifle that had originally introduced these rounds. Nor were they safe in "black powder" framed Peacemakers - as I'm sure you know, the ones with the early angled base pin screws and cast frames, rather than the spring loaded cross bolt retention system and forged frames.

Oddly enough, however, these "rifle" rounds were entirely safe in "2nd generation" Colts (when Colt went to the above mentioned forged, rather than cast iron) frames. So, again, these were by no means "rifle" rounds, being unsafe in the very rifle that originally chambered them, yet safe in Colt revolvers.

And yes, large capacity revolver rounds will, in fact, very easily hold double charges (or more) of fast burning pistol powders. .44 mag, .41 mag, .45 Colt, .357 mag, .44-40, .38-40, etc. will all very easily hold double charges of Unique, 231, Bullseye, HP38, and similar fast burning pistol powders. Many reloaders employ those powders in the bigger cases like these for lower powered plinking or target rounds. It's a very common practice, but it does require some care and attention to avoid inadvertently charging the same case twice. Try this - next time you sit down to reload a batch of .44 mag (and I doubt very much you do any reloading, from the lack of pertinent knowledge demonstrated in your posts), play around and see how much 231 you can get into a case. You can actually get a triple charge of that powder into a .44 mag case... yikes...

The load in that bad boy almost had to have been something like the wrong powder is about the only correct statement you made in your entire post. (I've already explained that as the only possible cause of this failure, if you take a look up thread a bit.) But then (hot on the heels of that statement) you make this one: Those rounds had actually been double charged, a situation that was allowed by the type of powder used which was not a normal pistol powder, which kind of blows your credibility on this topic. Contrary to you assertion, the very simple fact of the matter is the only powders with which one could pull off a double charge in this cartridge case (.44 mag) are entirely normal and commonly used pistol powders, like the afore mentioned Unique, 231, Bullseye, HP38, etc.

That is exactly what has happened here - someone asleep at the wheel when reloading. I've seen this time and again in a lifetime spent with firearms as a hunter, match competitor, NRA certified instructor, amateur gunsmith, and all around gun nut. I've been loading all of my own ammunition (since I was a young kid) in support of these activities, to the tune of over half a million rounds by my records. I've pretty much seen it all on this front.

The failure mode seen in this revolver has been seen far too may times in the shooting world, and has been very, very thoroughly examined by the most experienced men in the industry. This revolver likely failed due to a double charge of a fast burning pistol powder. An excessive charge of a slower powder - like 2400, 296, H110, #9, etc., will not do this - they may flatten primers, bulge cases, or even blow primers, but they will not blow the top strap off like that.

Granted (as an aside), another failure mode we've seen that blows top straps off is no powder, wherein the primer sends the bullet into the barrel, but without any powder to finish the job and continue to push it out, it gets lodged in the barrel and serves as a barrel obstruction. The next round then pops the top... However (as I'm sure you know), S&W cylinders rotate counter-clockwise. The round that would have been fired prior to the one that blew up the gun still has its bullet, so in this case, the empty case squib load scenario is simply not possible. That leaves the double charge as the most likely cause.

Oh, and Stijn, the adjacent rounds did not ignite. I have personally investigated, reviewed others' investigations, or have had a hand in the investigation of many such firearms failures involving revolvers, pistols, rifles, and shotguns. In the case of revolver failures, we have never seen that adjoining cylinders ignited.

[looneybin]

Originally Posted by vash

mmmm...chinese ammo!

the problem with it is: once you are done shooting it at the range..30 minutes later, you are ready for more shooting.

i guess that would be 'Kung POW' ammo

[fred cook]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Hmm... I did say "this" round, didn't I? All commercially loaded .44 mag ammunition is safe in every revolver or rifle ever commercially chambered for that round. Bar none. Such are the benefits of SAAMI and the standards that organization has brought to the industry. On top of that, no ammunition loaded per current reloading data from recognized sources will ever result in such a catastrophic failure. That, and I defy you to find any modern reloading manual that delineates between "rifle" and "pistol" ammunition in any caliber, allowing the "rifle" ammunition greater working pressures than the "pistol" ammunition in the same caliber. It simply does not exist.

Yes, once upon a time, the Winchester lever action rounds intended for the weak old '73, and then chambered in the Peacemaker (the .32-20 you mention, plus the .38-40 and the .44-40) were very restricted by the design of and materials used in those guns with regards to allowable pressures. With the advent of smokeless powder and the much stronger '92 Winchester, it became apparent there was some performance being left on the table with these rounds. Winchester then began loading "high velocity" smokeless rounds in these (originally black powder) chamberings that were intended for the '92 only. Many referred to these, quite erroneously, as "rifle" rounds. They were not, however, safe in all rifles - most notably Winchester's own '73, the rifle that had originally introduced these rounds. Nor were they safe in "black powder" framed Peacemakers - as I'm sure you know, the ones with the early angled base pin screws and cast frames, rather than the spring loaded cross bolt retention system and forged frames.

Oddly enough, however, these "rifle" rounds were entirely safe in "2nd generation" Colts (when Colt went to the above mentioned forged, rather than cast iron) frames. So, again, these were by no means "rifle" rounds, being unsafe in the very rifle that originally chambered them, yet safe in Colt revolvers.

And yes, large capacity revolver rounds will, in fact, very easily hold double charges (or more) of fast burning pistol powders. .44 mag, .41 mag, .45 Colt, .357 mag, .44-40, .38-40, etc. will all very easily hold double charges of Unique, 231, Bullseye, HP38, and similar fast burning pistol powders. Many reloaders employ those powders in the bigger cases like these for lower powered plinking or target rounds. It's a very common practice, but it does require some care and attention to avoid inadvertently charging the same case twice. Try this - next time you sit down to reload a batch of .44 mag (and I doubt very much you do any reloading, from the lack of pertinent knowledge demonstrated in your posts), play around and see how much 231 you can get into a case. You can actually get a triple charge of that powder into a .44 mag case... yikes...

The load in that bad boy almost had to have been something like the wrong powder is about the only correct statement you made in your entire post. (I've already explained that as the only possible cause of this failure, if you take a look up thread a bit.) But then (hot on the heels of that statement) you make this one: Those rounds had actually been double charged, a situation that was allowed by the type of powder used which was not a normal pistol powder, which kind of blows your credibility on this topic. Contrary to you assertion, the very simple fact of the matter is the only powders with which one could pull off a double charge in this cartridge case (.44 mag) are entirely normal and commonly used pistol powders, like the afore mentioned Unique, 231, Bullseye, HP38, etc.

That is exactly what has happened here - someone asleep at the wheel when reloading. I've seen this time and again in a lifetime spent with firearms as a hunter, match competitor, NRA certified instructor, amateur gunsmith, and all around gun nut. I've been loading all of my own ammunition (since I was a young kid) in support of these activities, to the tune of over half a million rounds by my records. I've pretty much seen it all on this front.

The failure mode seen in this revolver has been seen far too may times in the shooting world, and has been very, very thoroughly examined by the most experienced men in the industry. This revolver likely failed due to a double charge of a fast burning pistol powder. An excessive charge of a slower powder - like 2400, 296, H110, #9, etc., will not do this - they may flatten primers, bulge cases, or even blow primers, but they will not blow the top strap off like that.

Granted (as an aside), another failure mode we've seen that blows top straps off is no powder, wherein the primer sends the bullet into the barrel, but without any powder to finish the job and continue to push it out, it gets lodged in the barrel and serves as a barrel obstruction. The next round then pops the top... However (as I'm sure you know), S&W cylinders rotate counter-clockwise. The round that would have been fired prior to the one that blew up the gun still has its bullet, so in this case, the empty case squib load scenario is simply not possible. That leaves the double charge as the most likely cause.

Oh, and Stijn, the adjacent rounds did not ignite. I have personally investigated, reviewed others' investigations, or have had a hand in the investigation of many such firearms failures involving revolvers, pistols, rifles, and shotguns. In the case of revolver failures, we have never seen that adjoining cylinders ignited.

Yawn...............