Usually when a rifle has been shot before w/o anything happening and then you have catastrophic failure, it because of a double charge. I saw a nicely engraved Ballard in 32/40 come apart that way (double charged) just two benches from me.

I would be interested regarding the barrel particulars. Nothing can happen radiually until the barrel fails and it always starts at the extrator cut (you should always have a radius in the extractor cut, bigger the better).

I wish her a speedy recovery.

Frank

   
   A cousin of mine blew a nice 32-40 Ballard using smokeless. I'd told him and told him but some people you just waste your breath. He was shooting from his truck, only damage was shrapnel holes all over the headliner and ringing ears.....then he arc welded the split breach block together and the cracks in the frame and shot it again.  That time it locked up the action solid, may have saved his life. Now it's a wall hanger.

I hope the lady recovers with no lasting effects.

John...

My very first Schuetzen rifle was a cast frame Ballard chambered in .32-40.  When I purchased it, I was ignorant of all things Ballard and relied 100% on the word of the seller.

Fortunately (in retrospect -- at the time it didn't seem fortunate in the least), the rifle kept breaking and needed major repair work.  The breech block was a badly converted rimfire block that devoured firing pins and mainsprings at an amazing rate.

The rifle went off to Ballard Rifle (in Cody) and I was contacted directly by Steve Garbe who told me in no uncertain terms that he would not repair this rifle in center-fire configuration.   

After some discussion, Steve agreed to rebuild the breech block back to rim-fire configuration and install a .22 LR Krieger barrel.  The results were spectacular.  And, when I eventually sold the rifle, it was with a clear conscience.

I subsequently learned that it's not necessarily the injudicious hot load that causes immediate, spectacular failure in these actions.  The action could have been damaged years ago but with with no visible effects.  In that state, it can fail at any time even when carefully loaded.    

JackHughs

I'm not advocating the use of dangerous actions but, I do want to point out that a receiver can not fail radially until the barrel does. The Ballard that I saw fail had a leaded and sulphurized barrel threaded into it. The load (double charge) First caused the barrel to split at the extractor cut, the framed then failed because it could not contain the force released from the barrel failure. A frame (action) can not cause a barrel to fail radially! A frame exerts NO force that I know of other than what the threads exert on it axial and radially. The barrel (chamber) can exert force axially and that can cause a failure of the threads, breech block and the frame through as shown in the recent H&A thread but, if the barrel fails it isn't the fault of the action (frame), only that the frame could not contain the barrel failure. If you have trouble believing this, please note that a barrel can be fired w/o a frame holding it, just screw an cap on it and insert a pin in it for a firing pin and tap it with a "hammer". A very good example of what I'm talking about would be the very (my opinion) thin walls that high pressure revolvers have. I don't think any of us would feel very safe if our barrel shanks were so thin.

This is why I asked if anyone knew what barrel was used on that rifle.

Frank

Frank,
I mostly agree with you but the action can fail from thrust from the cartridge to the breach block The many cracked Ballard, Lowwall and Fox shotguns just didn't have catastrophic failure but. Some do have catastrophic failures and it has nothing to due with the barrel failure which can cause even a good action to fail.
Cheers,
Laurie

Sorry Frank: if the barrel is steel---elastic-- and the receiver is grey cast iron---brittle and non-elastic, then the frame can fail first. When the frame cracks, it is no longer supporting the barrel hoop stresses and barrel failure will then follow--all in the space of a few micro-seconds.
Fred

I once owned a cast Ballard action in 44-40.Now that is not considered a "hot" cartridge, but i never used a pure smokeless load in it.I did try a duplex , but found that a safe load would not burn the smokeless.After that i used nothing but FFG BP in it, and i had no trouble with it.I would NEVER use a pure smokeless load in a Ballard, for safetes sake.All it takes is one mistake,and BOOM.My father did that with a No.1 Rolling Block.The action held but the barrel was bulged and ruined just forward of the chamber.I think it was a "Senior moment" as he was 75 at the time.

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

WOW, I don't think that even a forged frame would have taken that failure. The Shilo site said it was the first shot out of the ammo box and the ammo was sealed after the blow up, I assume that means they are going to check what the actual load was in the cases. Hopefully that info will be released.

Frank

Am with Joe on this one. 

No reason to use old actions for modern loads.   I used to use a fair amount of fast pistol powder loads in Trapdoors. They work well but the fear of double charge with disastrous results keeps me away from it now.   

Bet anything it was double charged.

Boats

Any action cast or forged could be a time bomb. Many of these have been built up over the years into varmint guns, target rifles and other forms of our esteemed shooting sports. At times some of these actions may have been compromised by overly hot hand loads or just poor maintenance or sub standard gunsmithing. MY contact said he was sure it was a liner failure which in turn caused the original barrel to fail which in turn caused the action failure. Makes perfect sense to me. If you have an old rifle and really want to be safe examine it really close and have it magnafluxed. It is cheap insurance. X-ray is a good idea too. I have a cousin who is an x-ray tech who did my Ballard and it is OK. Gary Quinlan here about a year ago told me a story of a friend of his who decided to shoot a very high end collectors pistol who now has about 1.25 worth of scrap iron. It blew up. Old guns as JoeB said do that occasionally just like old cars, motorcycles or whatever. These steel actions forged or cast take a beating and most survive as we do, then there are these others that just happen to fail. I always try to shoot a new to me old rifle tied down to a tire with a large string. I have been burnt before even after due diligence of checking it out really good. There is never  a fail proof gun. Hell modern production guns fail. But with the help of a good smith and leg work on our part we can narrow the odds down that are rifles will not end up maiming us or others. I' restoring a Winchester Model 93 shotgun for a friend and had to really hunt for a new bolt, his was cracked. He had been shooting high base 12 ga. smokeless in it for years. I think he had some one watching over his dumb ass and that is what I told him. Too many of this model blew up, that is why it was discontinued and they made the Model 1897, more for smokeless powder and a better grade of steel. He promised to only shoot black hand loads in it from now on if he ever shoots it again.
Mike

I'll state the obvious, It is good to know, when you pull the trigger, if it is a rifle or if it is a bomb.

Good advice here, thanks all for posting it.

If you look at the lower left of whats left of the action there is a square section of metal.  In both pictures there is a Grey area behind the bright shinny cracked area.  I cant be sure with out looking at the action but that looks suspiciously like and old crack, they will fill with dirt and oil over time thats why the dull color.   The bright shinny is all new metal thus new crack.

The weak link here is people!!  Many moons ago while I was working for a gunsmith here in town a fellow brought in a very nice Stevens 44 that was chambered in 32-40.  He wanted it checked out before he shot it.  The first thing that Jerry (the smith I was working for) had me do was to run it over to the Welding Shop and have it Magna-Fluxed.  The powder showed a sub-surface crack about 2/3's the way along the receiver ring.  When I brought it back Jerry, to my surprise had me bob the firing pin so that it could not be fired.  We also filled out a form that stated the gun was unsafe to fire and had the guy sign it.  To make a long story short the fellow brought it back a few weeks later mad as hell that his gun wouldn't go off.  He had found a box of John Wayne commemorative ammo and tried to shoot it, told us if we wouldn't fix it then he would find someone that would.  Jerry very nicely invited him to get the &%%$ out of his shop.  I wonder if he still has all his fingers? 

Bob

With both a frame and breech block failure, it would seem like it is highly probable that this was an overload or a barrel obstruction issue.  Also, it is worth noting that the block failed in the area of the upper breach block screw..

  As a matter of fact, my #2 Ballard came from the factory chambered for a centerfire round. But I think mafnafluxing ANY old action is a good idea.

I own several #2 cast Ballards chambered from the factory in CF rounds, but all are pistol CF rounds, and I only fire them with very light plinker loads. The ones that concern me the most are my #2 in .32-20 and .44-40. Have anothger in .44 Ballard XL that could be an issue if improperly hand loaded to hot .44 loads. Those in .32 and .38 Long with reversible firing pins for CF don't bother me. The CF versions of these cartridges are such low pressure rounds they would work in many weaker actions.

     My only Ballard is a #2 in .32 Long, rim or center fire.  It operates at less than half the pressure of a .22 long rifle.  And  current factory loads for 44-40's are way below 22 LR    pressures.  But bigger diameter cases  puts more pressure on the breech block,  although it's hoop strength of the cast steel  that is the problem.                                                                          marlinguy wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2012 at 6:39pm:

Well...this has been an eye opener! Many moons go I got a straight grip Ballard at the Portland , Oregon Expo show from Joe Williams,who warned me at the time that it had been re-barrelled and chambered for what "looked like .444 marlin" so I should only use black powder in it.The twist is 1 in 15".

It turned out to be a No.2, and it has been to England as it has British proofs on the frame and breech block.

Being well aware of the limitations of cast frame Ballards I have always been pretty careful with the old girl...but this thread got me to thinking I should re-evaluate things, and so I decided to take apart a few of the loaded rounds I had and check my log book.

Sure enough, I have 48 grs. of ffg behind a 330 gr bullet and a card wad...far too much for comfort considering the likely chamber pressures this might create due to the heavier bullet and charge.Never had any signs of trouble over the years, and it is quite accurate at 100 and 200 yards, but I am going to pull the barrel and make one up in 22lr.I would hate to have a failure, I make my living with my hands and eyes, a blow up like the one pictured would put an end to my career for sure.

It is an interesting rifle...serial no. 833, and from the Dutcher book the hammer and lever look to be left over Brown parts, and it has the nicest single trigger I have ever had, just perfect.It should make a lovely , but heavy 22!

Nero wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 10:21pm:


I don't think you have been.  The high wall is a totally different animal than the ballard cast frame.  The steel is much better.  Plus, the design is much stronger.  That has been proven over and over again.  Although it is possible to blow up a high wall, it takes a lot of pressure to do so.  Given that you have a modern steel barrel, there should be no problems with your cartridges, given you don't go to outrageous pressures.

Your case size is also smaller in diameter than the .45-70 size that is being used with smokeless in BPCR rifles.  That reduces both the hoop stress, and increases the barrel wall to hold it. 

This particular unfortunate accident isn't putting out new information showing that previously known to be safe rifles aren't; it is just a reinforcement of what has been known for years and a reminder that previously known marginal or unsafe rifles are still an accident waiting to happen.

I'll summarize what I think I know about the various low strength original actions:

Stevens 44 & Ballard Cast Frame - unsafe except for .22 rf; marginal with some selected, small dia, low pressure centerfire blackpowder cartridges.
Ballard Forged Frame - Safe for BP Centerfire up to .45-90.
Winchester Low Wall - Safe for .22 rf and small, low pressure pistol class cartridges; including .32-20 and .25-20 with moderate loads.
Rolling Block #1 Blackpowder:  Safe for .45-70, .50-70, and similar blackpowder loads and not recommended for smokeless equivalents.
Rolling Block #5 Smokeless:  Safe for .45-70, .50-70, .50-90, .50-110 and similar blackpowder loads.  Safe for 28,000 psi and less smokeless loads in .45-70 and smaller cases.
Hopkins & Allen large and medium frames:  Safe for .22 lr and small pistol cartridges using blackpowder.  Not safe with smokeless.

My opinion only.
dave

bluesman wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 3:43pm:


The deep crescent is also an early Marlin/Brown style buttplate. Beautiful wood on the buttstock!

Howdy...yes indeed, that wood was one of the reasons I just had to have the old girl..the frame is drilled for the lever stud, but the lever has no corresponding hole, and so I imagine there was never a stud in place.
The butt-plate does not have the through-hole type mount, it's hidden under the plate.Fascinating stuff all of this...early JM Ballards are kind of  Forrest Gump rifles...you never know what you'll get!

It is just not cast Ballards that can be unsafe with smokeless. So can the older rolling blocks. When a roller lets loose, it can be equally catastrophic. The old actions were never designed with the pressures in mind that smokeless can give. And it is impossible to double charge a case with black powder.

I don't read that at all in what I said..........No, why would you even try to think I was saying that.  Seems I said it was not just a cast Ballard that was unsafe with smokeless, and the poster above was making a comment about smokeless -vs- black at the matches and why not just ban cast Ballards.  

The comment about black powder has to do simply with the poster saying why pick on smokeless and I said you can't double charge a case with black powder. 

I have been at some of the matches and with my electronic ear muffs I have heard quite a few "weird" sounding rounds go off. You can tell a black powder boom -vs- a smokeless round and you can sure tell the weird rounds that folks aren't careful with.  I have heard lots of them that sound like a bee or something buzzing down range.

I think that as a consequence of this accident there is going to be a major re-think. At the Sagebrush Alliance Neb gong match, competitors and their spotters are clustered pretty close together at the various stages. At some of the other venues, I would imagine it is pretty much the same. 

I know I will be very closely looking at who is shooting what next to me.

Perhaps the 30 grains removed from her cheek refers to 30 individual particles, and not 30 grains weight of powder?

Would it nor be safe to use the mildest load with maybe, Trailboss smokeless? This is in a 32-20 or smaller Ballard.

Cars are dangerous but we dont stop driving. You should give your wife more credit than that. 

Joe.

And yet in another thread regarding this very same thing, it is being made light of.
It's only funny 'till happens to you or someone you know and care about.

A friend was shooting in this match about 4 seats away when it went off with the strange noise, he is a gunsmith and he was sure that the barrel is what gave way, not the action first. If the barrel had a flaw in the steel that was not visible it could happen. Sako barrels were or are some of the best barrels around but I have seen a newer Sako barrel that looked like a pipe bomb. 
I shoot and have shot damascus barreled guns for years with no problems, damascus barrels are still made in Europe and if you want one you pay double or triple for it, Beretta offers them from the custom shop as do others. But even a regular plain jane steel barrel can have irregularities in the steel that the barrel is made with. Bad batch, bad quality control or whatever. Poop happens.  I do not plan on stopping me shooting any of my older guns, that is what I love shooting the most. To me that would be like really enjoying driving a Model A Ford and getting rid of it for a Ford Fiesta, Pinto, or whatever. Ain't happening.
Mike

    I would be interested in a "sock drawer" Ballard.  I promise I will keep it under lock and key 99% of the time, and not offend anyone by bringing it to a match.  I will only bring it out to caress by the light of the moon.  I promise, really, really I do.  Perhaps I will erect a miniature Statue of Liberty in my door-yard, emblazoned "Bring me your tired, dangerous, and ridiculed old Ballards, I will give them succor and peace.

     Yes Joe, it's a tremendous sacrifice, but I will man up and and do this for the betterment of my fellow man.  And think of all the happy go lucky citizens I'm saving from disfiguring injuries, or worse.   

   My goodness, Marlinguy, how embarassing to be short of funds just when one of these hand grenades comes up for sale.  My sock drawer is all puckered up leading to tears over this.

agreed

Hindsight is always good stuff. We are supposed to learn by our mistakes but first we have to survive. Better yet design procedures so mistakes don't happen. I've been handloading for 68 years; very early on I inculcated priming and then placing the cartridges upside down in a block. Handle one by one from then on. Never had a problem but that also means using some common sense about the appropriate powder and load. 

But then there is Mark Twain and his quote " why is common sense so uncommon". 
Good design and implementation of that design is paramount to keeping one's head functional and attached to body. 
It is a shame that the Ballards were not forged. Can't win them all. The early Winchesters were 1008 for steel; not exactly fancy stuff but also they were forged which adds about 15% to to the strength. My winder is 1522 alloy but still not heat treated. Every once in a while I'm tempted to have it cased about 15 thou and then quenched (oil). I could then push it some but I am much more likely to simply make an action in 8620 or 4140 which would come up to modern standards.

Shifting gears; for those shooters that have access to "Double Gun Journal" Sherman Bell wrote a whole series of articles about substituting modern powders for black. It can be done if one keeps his wits. I rather like the approach of the Accurate Powder reloading manual which has a section on loading smokeless to replace black. Load BP in the recommended manner then test for pressure. Adjust the smokeless loads so the pressure is less than or equal to the BP pressure. No magic there. As always one has to preclude double or triple charging.   
Reloading is best done when one is not fuzzy headed. 

Every new and experienced re-loader should hang that photo wherever they charges cases. Obviously that was a detonation.  If you don't have a fool proof system to prevent a double charge of smokeless you should stick with black.  One virtue of 4759 was a double charged the case it was easy to detect.  Very sorry for the lady and her family.

I have read but I also don't know if it's true that an under charged load can also cause a detonation and can become just as dangerous as an overloaded cartridge can. Unfortunately Ballard's have gotten a bad name when it comes to them being safe. I have seen several forged actions being loaded to what some would seem to be pretty hot with smokeless. Not only did they hold together but it was also what it took to get the ver best accuracy of those rifles. I have sat one bench over from someone shooting one in a match that I thought might be a little bit on the hot side but I never felt unsafe by sitting next one. Some folks tend to think they are a time bomb waiting to go off but it actually takes more than just a few grains or a few tenths to have them self destruct.

I have heard bad things about H110 and I have stayed away from using it. All though I did test both H110 and 296 neither one of them proved to be consistent enough for my own use. It's been quite sometime back now but if memory serves right all though some claim them both to be the same. The H110 was quite a bit more tempreture sensitive than some of the others proved out to be. It is funny in that you mentioned it being used in a Ballard. One of the folks I sat next to was also shooting it in his Ballard. I could clearly hear a difference in his shots when it started heating up for the day. He is also one of those who loaded it on the hotter side and a 32-40 probably pushing 1500 fps.

All I ever shot in my Ballard was BP, 4227 AND 4759.  All were well proven and tested for nearly a century before I started shooting mine. I figure if they weren't OK in  Pope-Ballard, Harry would have put a stop to it

I would think that a 148 gr full wadcutter takes up an awful lot of case capacity. Pressure is probably right up there like what happens to 40s when the bullet gets jammed down in the case. A double load would be very exciting.

Shoot smokeless powder in black powder rifles and you deserve what you get, shame about the rifle though.
Mike.

No doubt some smokeless powders work and prove themselves safe in these old rifles but under no circumstances will I use 5744 in my rifles. In years past I used it but after seeing the pictures of a destroyed 1903-A3, a rifle build to take extreme pressures, and no know reason for the destruction that powder is off my list until it is proven the cause was otherwise.

Considering the crack, and it being a stripped action, I'd never consider it myself. I do have enough parts to assemble a complete action, but wouldn't waste or use them on that action unless somebody gave it to me.

No body is self deserving to get hurt or harmed. As Vall said in the past twenty seven years my BP rifles have never had BP being used in any of them to date. So are you saying we both deserve to have a rifle blow up, be hurt or to harm somebody else near by?

There is an article written in the January / February 2013 Single Shot Rifle Journal Vol. 66 No.1 about this action. It was a cast action and in 40-65 according to SSDave who also noted the load as being 20 or 22 grains of AA5744 who has stated he was also there at the time. The article by Bob Carow in the Journal was more specific to the weakness of the cast actions and to the whys and not specific to the accident itself.