The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 20, 2012, 08:06 PM   #26
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,452
The reproduction of SEE should be expected to be difficult because it is rare. If you imagine, for example, that it requires the powder to separate into two piles, one of which provides the fusing heat for the other then the detonation heat for the other when fusing pile no longer absorbs heat by melting, you can see how a lab might never reproduce that situation accidentally within a reasonable number of rounds. They'd have to know that was what they were looking for.

Rocky Raab says the notion that a lab can't reproduce the phenomenon is out of date, and that powder people he's talked to have been able to reproduce it in more recent years. I don't have any references for this other than his say so.

Ignition of the surface area of powder is something that appears to show up in the old Lloyd Brownell study. Plots of erratic pressure with loads below about 60% fill show up in it, though none of his exhibited dangerous pressures. They may well have been due to large surface area ignition, though. (See pages 53 and 54 (64 and 65 as Acrobat reader counts pages), here.)
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
Unclenick is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 08:27 PM   #27
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger
You'd think, but the phenomenon certainly does happen.
Based on what 'evidence'?

I am willing to believe, but so far no one can show me anything remotely resembling 'evidence' that it happens...

I am not a religious person for the same reasons...

I am agnostic on the existence of 'God', just as I am agnostic on the existence of 'SEE'...

The absence of proof is not proof...

Don't just tell us it exists 'cuz you say so'...

Not trying to be a dufus, but so far I see nothing other than a 'possible' related instance of an esoteric theoretical explanation from a company trying to sell me some hardware...

I am indeed willing to believe, but the fact that no powder, bullet, or component manufacturer, has ever been able to define/describe/repeat 'SEE' to me is very telling...
Salmoneye is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 08:31 PM   #28
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
The evidence to me is all the times it's been purported to happen.

Sure, this guy or that guy actually screwed up and double charged a case. No doubt, and SEE gets blamed. I'm sure that happens.

I have a hard time believing that ALL the cases of it happening, frequently enough that the likely scenarios causing it, small charges of fast powders in large cases, has been identified.

What if we say, 80, even 90%, of all instances are actually just stupid screw-up, double, triple charges... that leaves 10, 15, 20% unexplained.

We know we can duplicate the effect, just plug the case solid and load that much powder. BOOM! Now we just have to know why it happens when it "shouldn't".
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 08:33 PM   #29
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,404
Quote:
Plots of erratic pressure with loads below about 60% fill show up in it, though none of his exhibited dangerous pressures.
I'll have to read the Dupont link tomorrow, but I'll take your word that nothing in the data shows anything resembling "SEE"...

Back to square one?
Salmoneye is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 08:36 PM   #30
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,404
Quote:
What if we say, 80, even 90%, of all instances are actually just stupid screw-up, double, triple charges...
Then we can just as easily say that it was 100%, or that the other '10%-20%' were mistakenly loaded faster powders that 'may' have been mislabeled...

?
Salmoneye is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 08:37 PM   #31
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,404
Quote:
I have a hard time believing that ALL the cases of it happening, frequently enough that the likely scenarios causing it, small charges of fast powders in large cases,
And isn't that supposed to be small charges of SLOW powders in large case?

Salmoneye is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 08:44 PM   #32
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Sorry, yes.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 09:02 PM   #33
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,404
Thanks for the clarification...

I do appreciate it...

I am not trying to convince anyone to think the way I do...I am sincerely trying to understand for my own edification...

I do indeed believe that people have KB's that they can not explain to themselves or others...

I also believe firmly that the scientific method by definition insists on repeatability of a phenomenon in order to confirm a hypothesis...
Salmoneye is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 12:33 AM   #34
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,756
Salmoneye,

Good luck finding the Higgs Boson. When something is very statistically unlikely then it takes a very large sample size to find statistical significance, hence CERN spending a lot of money and computing power to analyze more data than all of humanity could with our combined brainpower.

Some event just aren't that "repeatable" in what we have available.

So while I admire your skepticism, I caution you to employ the sound cautionary principle of, "If paying attention to this safety rule I don't understand doesn't hurt me, I'll obey it just in case something exists beyond my understanding."

Nitrocellulose has an R factor of 1.10 as compared to TNT (10% more powerful). It is powerful stuff, and when it reaches detonation (as opposed to deflagration) it can make a right mess of things.

Jimro
__________________
"Gorsh" said Goofy as secondary explosions racked the beaten zone, "Did I do that?"

http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/
Jimro is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 06:35 AM   #35
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,404
In no way am I suggesting that I (or others) should load small doses of slow powders...

But I do load small doses of a very fast powder in 'large' cases with what I believe to be excellent results in these intended uses...

I have never heard an SEE warning for fast powder till mid-post #14...
Salmoneye is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 11:09 AM   #36
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmoneye
I'll have to read the Dupont link tomorrow, but I'll take your word that nothing in the data shows anything resembling "SEE"...

Back to square one?
I think this is mixing apples and oranges. Probably my fault. My point in bringing up the old pressure study data is that it shows the effect of large surface area ignition and also that large surface area ignition is not the same thing as detonation. It's just powder starting to burn faster than normal. However, Norma had examples of such loads that did create excess pressure up on their site at one point (I can't find a link now; will have to look further). I think it is a common confusion that all sources of high pressure due to underfilling the case are the same. Wide area ignition involves larger quantities of powder than detonation. Detonation would cause very local fracturing of metal at the powder mass location, after which if only takes only a few hundred psi (about all the tiny charge's gas quantity can muster) to spread the cracks and complete disassembly of the gun.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmoneye
And isn't that supposed to be small charges of SLOW powders in large case?...
...I have never heard an SEE warning for fast powder till mid-post #14...
Here's the source: This page has brief mention of a .308 blown up by a Finnish gun writer (who didn't previously believe in the existence of SEE's) using 0.2 grams (3.1 grains) of Vihtavuori N320, a pistol powder about like PB and Accurate #2 in burn rate (between Bullseye and Unique), under a Lapua D-46 type bullet. It says he nearly lost his eyesight despite wearing shooting glasses. (The English is not great on that site and the mention is broken into two different paragraphs; just over 1/2 way down the page).

What's important to note is that unlike "Bullseye Surprise" in .38 Special target loads, the effect of tiny charges in large case volumes cannot be explained away by double charges. You would have to overcharge the case about 7 times just to get to normal .308 pressures in that described incident. It also goes to Brian's point that it is better to err on the side of excess caution rather than the other way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmoneye
. . . but the fact that no powder, bullet, or component manufacturer, has ever been able to define/describe/repeat 'SEE' to me is very telling...
And that may be untrue, now. I'll see if I can get Rocky to cough up the source of his information that labs have more recently figured out how to reproduce it. Technology is always advancing, of course.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
Unclenick is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 12:28 PM   #37
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,404
Thanks for all of that...

From your link:

One friend and colleague of an author, a highly educated Finnish gunwriter, did not believe on warnings that the Secondary Explosion Effect (S.E.E. -- also known as the Reduced-Charge Detonation) is possible with sub-minimum charges as small as 0.2 grams = 200 milligrams = 3.1 grains with a force, able to wreck a good quality .308 Winchester rifle. One full gram of the very same powder behind the same kind of bullet may be completely safe charge. The friend almost lost his eyesight, despite of the safety goggles he bore.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but we are back to 'A guy I know did this' type info...

According to the article he was also loading a heavy long bearing surfaced spire point jacketed bullet backwards in a case as a 'plinking round'...
Salmoneye is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 03:36 PM   #38
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,756
The Finn's, and Scandinavian countries in general, have a longstanding tradition of loading, "Gallery Loads" for indoor shooting in winter, and training new shooters. Of course Gallery Loads were much more common in the late 1800s and early 1900s as public shooting events were considered a normal part of life.

One of the methods that has been used over the years is to find a lead ball of the approximate diameter of the bore (such as #1 buckshot for a 30 caliber rifle) and load it into with a very small charge of fast pistol powder. The 7.62x54r loaded with such "cat sneeze" gallery loads was described here: http://guns.connect.fi/gow/arcane1.html

Jimro
__________________
"Gorsh" said Goofy as secondary explosions racked the beaten zone, "Did I do that?"

http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/
Jimro is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 06:49 PM   #39
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,452
More than that, Finnish law actually requires use of suppressors in many areas to prevent sound pollution. So they work on subsonic loads a lot.


Salmoneye,

I didn't say it was court level controlled condition documented proof of SEE. I merely wanted to give the source for completeness. It carries at least as much weight as any other anecdotal report of SEE. That is, it's an alert, neither to be blindly believed nor entirely dismissed from a safety standpoint. It's a valid indication the matter needs further study.

The two extreme examples that come to mind are how many people have seen UFO's, which seem unlikely will ever turn out to be actual alien spacecraft. That's more a matter of how the witnesses interpret what they see or experience. The other is all the years physicists universally dismissed the possibility of the existence of ball lightning as merely spots in front of the eyes of their beholders on similar grounds. No theoretical basis and no lab evidence. It wasn't until a reputable physicist personally witnessed a lightning ball form up on the high voltage supply in a particle accelerator in one of the National Labs in about 1970 that minds began to change. He reported it left the supply, danced around his shoulders, then moved off to an electrical box where it exploded and did some physical damage. They went looking for a way to make them after that, of course. Someone discovered that Nikola Tesla had described a lightning ball generator in the late 1800's and that Mark Twain claimed to have seen Tesla demonstrating it (they were friends). I don't know if they ever got a version of Tesla's apparatus working, but they do make small fireballs now by rapidly opening large surface area high current electric train engine circuit breakers.

Anyway, you get the point. Some things witnessed by the masses are figments of the imagination, but some things reported in quantity turn out to be true. Again, from a safety standpoint, there's no penalty for treating the possibility as if it were true, where there may be one for ignoring it. Prudence suggests doing the former until it is proved or disproved and the mechanism understood.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member

Last edited by Unclenick; November 21, 2012 at 10:12 PM.
Unclenick is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 09:42 PM   #40
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,404
Quote:
The Finn's, and Scandinavian countries in general, have a longstanding tradition of loading, "Gallery Loads" for indoor shooting in winter, and training new shooters. Of course Gallery Loads were much more common in the late 1800s and early 1900s as public shooting events were considered a normal part of life.

One of the methods that has been used over the years is to find a lead ball of the approximate diameter of the bore (such as #1 buckshot for a 30 caliber rifle) and load it into with a very small charge of fast pistol powder. The 7.62x54r loaded with such "cat sneeze" gallery loads was described here: http://guns.connect.fi/gow/arcane1.html
And 'Cellar Loads' are exactly what I was describing earlier in the thread as what I load...

No filler used, and very small loads of fast powder under pure lead round balls in .30-30, .30-06, and .35 Remington...

The recipes for .30-30 and .35 Remington can be found in Ideal Handbook #38
Salmoneye is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 09:59 PM   #41
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,404
Quote:
I didn't say it was court level controlled condition documented proof of SEE. I merely wanted to give the source for completeness. It carries at least as much weight as any other anecdotal report of SEE. That is, it's an alert, neither to be blindly believed nor entirely dismissed from a safety standpoint. It's a valid indication the matter needs further study.
On this we fully agree...

I do not blindly ignore it, but in the absence of repeatable empirical evidence, I have to look at it as no more than anecdotal...

I sincerely want to thank you all for being patient with me...

I really am trying to grasp the situation, but I am stubborn and do not like things that have 'untidy' explanations...
Salmoneye is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 10:32 PM   #42
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,452
That's understandable. Untidy is distressing in that it suggests lack of real understanding which leads to lack of control and also makes the explanation less than entirely useful. That's what got Pons and Fleischman in trouble with so-called cold fusion (that and the unfortunate name). Even today, though 60 Minutes reported they have been quietly vindicated by a number of cells operating in laboratories in various parts of the world, some cells seem to fade in and out of producing excess heat, while some never work and the working ones produce different levels of excess heat gain. We are unaccustomed to having our best quality control and precision processes result in such randomly unpredictable outcomes.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member
Unclenick is offline  
Old November 22, 2012, 09:40 PM   #43
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,756
Quote:
Even today, though 60 Minutes reported they have been quietly vindicated by a number of cells operating in laboratories in various parts of the world, some cells seem to fade in and out of producing excess heat, while some never work and the working ones produce different levels of excess heat gain. We are unaccustomed to having our best quality control and precision processes result in such randomly unpredictable outcomes.
They say when the science is settled that it becomes an engineering problem.

The problem with chaotic systems is figuring out when the science is settled enough to become an engineering problem.

Jimro
__________________
"Gorsh" said Goofy as secondary explosions racked the beaten zone, "Did I do that?"

http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/
Jimro is offline  
Old November 27, 2012, 11:39 AM   #44
Swampstalker
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 30, 2011
Posts: 3
Swampstalker's Wrap

Gee, Foax, I hardly know what to say! "Sorry I asked" comes to mind, but in fact, this was among the very few most masterfully comprehensive and instructive series of responses I've ever read, and a credit to the generations of science and engineering professors (and handloading and safety instructors) who raised y'all! Please accept my most profound thanks: I'll be printing out this query and its responses, and posting it prominently in our library of handloading references.

BTW, I was only curious. My own inclinations are to fast powders, relatively full cases, and additive-free bores, but I'm always happy to learn more.

Thanks again for your guidance!

Walt
Swampstalker is offline  
Old November 28, 2012, 12:31 PM   #45
F. Guffey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2008
Posts: 2,780
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341348



You did good, many questions can be laid over a template and have the appearance nothing changed, accepting our prejudices as in foreigners wrote an article, published their opinion/results/findings 'THEN! went back to work working on something else 'meaning' "They quit talking about it", we didn't. After all, who are these people, foreigners? What do they know? I read the article, I do not use reduced loads, I am the fan of the running start, I want my bullets to have a jump start. There is nothing about "I seat my bullets off the lands .002" that impresses me.



I am also the fan of 'time is a factor'. I am also the fan of burning powder in a column, gas will burn in a can from the top down, spread the same gas out over a larger area whole igniting it can result in finding yourself on top of a building or blowing yourself across a 4 lane street, two separate events, one P&B friend was standing on top of a 55 gal drum with an open bung while grinding the top of an vehicle. The sailor cats were cleaning their shop floor with gasoline, hurt? The part that hurt the most was the doors were open, in their way of thinking had the doors been closed there would have been something their to slow them down.



F. Guffey
F. Guffey is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11854 seconds with 9 queries