Fred Boulton wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 2:30pm:

Sorry Fred, i can't quite buy into that. I'm not posting to start a argument here but, if what you say is true, there would be cases where the receiver ring spit but the barrel stayed in tact. What I'm saying is that BEFORE there can be a catastrophic RADIAL failure, there HAS to be a barrel failure first. Depending on the barrel shank diameter and the cartridge case diameter, the barrel shank can be much stronger than the receiver ring. 

I'm not saying that a frame will not crack, either. As I posted above, a modern barrel does not even need a action to fire high pressure loads, as long as the thrust can be contained. 

My main interest was what the barrel was. It would also be of interest to know about the extractor cut in the barrel.

Extractor cuts are extremely important and for safest results, they should have as large a radii as possible and not be over .180 deep even if they have a substantial radii.

If you double charge a case, there is no guarantee that any action will take the pressure generated.

I think there should be investigations done in cases like this but, that they have NO legal standing and be done for informative, learning tools.

Frank

Over on the Shiloh board it was reported by Mike Venturino that 


Quote:

Here's an example of the weakness of Ballard receiver castings ... when I was reworking the JM Marlin#3 Target 22LR, the complete receiver casting was covered with pits.  If the plating was still on it - would have never known how bad the casting was

Uechi wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 8:30pm:


I've had to ask myself that question recently, so I'll answer it.

The nature of the game at Quigley comes close to forcing you to, with a novice shooter.  When I started shooting it a few years ago, there were about half the shooters there are today.  Blackpowder was the norm, although many did shoot smokeless.  Blow tubing was the norm for blackpowder.  Relays were slow paced, and each shooter took the time to blow tube.  With more shooters, the range officers are continuously pushing people to be quick.  Because of that, a lot have gone to smokeless, although many have gone to wiping with a rod between shots.   

I built my wife a smokeless rifle this year.  I also lend my two brother in laws that shoot once a year with us my Browning BPCR, and load smokeless ammo for them.  As a novice shooter, they can spend their time between shots operating the action, adjusting sights, etc and not cleaning their barrel or blow tubing.  They need every minute they can get.

The good thing about black is that contrary to popular opinion, it is faster and easier to clean up than smokeless.  I blow a mouth full of water through the barrel, put through a patch, repeat, and then dry with a patch.  Push through a lubed patch, and I'm done.  Half the effort of smokeless cleanup.

I used a high wall action in .38-55 for my wifes rifle.  I also worked up a load, and then sequentially loaded it hotter until I was very near a double charge (and case full).  It didn't have horribly excess pressure signs, so I concluded it was a safe load, regardless of whether I made a loading mistake.

I also use a load for the Browning that can stand a double charge.  The Browning, like the winchester, can stand a full case load of smokeless.  It's your shoulder that complains.

dave

ssdave, a lot of what you say about reasons for using smokeless at the Q are for sure correct but I have noticed that even some long time shooters have moved to using smokeless.  Some of them are excellent shooters.  I don't know if they believe it is an advantage in accuracy or what.  It sure makes it difficult for a blackpowder shooter to keep up with fouling control when he is in a group with 3 or 4 smokeless shooters.  Dr. Tom's advice is good and should be heeded.  Even though the highwall is strong, each one is dependent on it's metallurgy when it was made and how well it was cared for over its lifetime.  Some of you may remember bout 2 years ago when a west coast shooter split his 32-40 highwall action in half most likely with a double charge.  He was most fortunate and there was no barrel failure.  Using large capacity cases with smokeless in an old action is just asking for trouble even in a case the size of a 32-40.  Bob

I had a friend 2 seats away from this lady in the other direction and he said the same thing about the sound and saw the barrel headed downrange. He is a gunsmith and thinks the liner failed which caused the barrel to fail being a mild steel barrel. She is lucky to be alive. The accident could have been far worse then it was. He did not think it was a frame failure at all.
Mike

Hello, everyone.  The suggestion made by Uechi, of having differen't classes for black & smokeless makes sense..it seems that if there is the slightest bit of grey area as far as rules go..someone is going to jump in there and use it for their advantage..real or imagined.
  I remember back in the  early 90's, when some of the then new black powder shilouette shooters came out to try schuetzen shooting.  Their scores were lower of course than the smaller caliber schuetzen rifles..but then they were using big bore (.40+) "buffalo rifles" burning black powder.
I still recall the silent stares of the "true target shooters" if the smokescreen laid down by these big boomers happened to disturb their aim.  There was grumbling heard in back of the firing line..heck of a way to welcome potentially new shooting members!
Not many of those guys came back.  How ironic..and hypocritical!  Even our venerated H.M. Pope was using black in his muzzle/breech loaders.

Quote:
If that was the case then I would presume that there was no sleeve put in the chamber around the liner to provide extra strength on ignition