Username: Password:

Author Topic: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????  (Read 2205 times)

Curmudgeon

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 583
They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
« on: July 27, 2019, 02:50:13 pm »
Had this happen a handful of times already with .44 magnum

All my loads are in extremely clean brass, and I have no issues with those.

I have about 40, old nickel plated cases that I use for testing odd-ball stuff, or maybe just using up a few leftover bullets.  Like I said this has happened 5 or 6 times.  Fired the round  ........  Squib.  BUT NO
Ejected the case, lots of powder in it.  Knocked out the bullet, and see a big wad of powder sitting right behind it.  That wad in the pic was bigger, but some broke off. 

Contaminated powder?  I guess that's it, but how?

These particular loads were about 28 grains of 296, so the case gets pretty full.  I visual them when seating the bullets, so it's definitely not an under-charge.

All my rounds in my clean brass are fine.  No issues at all.  All the rounds were loaded from the same 8 pound jug of powder.

I haven't cleaned these old cases at all.  Just kind of keep using them until they show signs of splitting, and then toss 'em.

Is it even SLIGHTLY possible, that the soot inside the cases could contaminate the powder?  I find that hard to believe.  The soot isn't oily or greasy at all.  I ran a Q-tip inside the cases

I'm just amazed that a primer could ignite, have enough force to propel the bullet into the barrel, and not fire up a case full of 296

ArizonaGunOwners.com

  • Advertisement
  • ***

    car-ram-rod

    • Sr. Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 5135
      • Immediate Action Tactics & Training Group
    Re: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
    « Reply #1 on: July 27, 2019, 03:02:52 pm »
    You don’t clean your brass?
    NRA Pistol, Rifle and Shotgun Instructor
    NRA Range Safety Officer
    Colt AR15 Certified Armorer
    GLOCK Armorer

    ben

    • Jr. Member
    • *
    • Posts: 59
    Re: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
    « Reply #2 on: July 27, 2019, 03:18:15 pm »
    What type of press are you loading them on? I suppose it’s possible that the resizing process scrapes all the burnt crap down to the bottom of the case where it coats the freshly inserted primer enough to not ignite the powder on top of the burnt residue.... but if the cases were cleaned that would eliminate that possibility. Either clean or toss the cases.

    Curmudgeon

    • Sr. Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 583
    Re: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
    « Reply #3 on: July 27, 2019, 03:55:01 pm »
    You don’t clean your brass?

    Of course I clean my brass.  You've seen it.   It's only these 40 or so old cases that I don't clean

    coelacanth

    • Sr. Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 9004
    • eccentric orbit
    Re: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
    « Reply #4 on: July 27, 2019, 04:09:08 pm »
    I'm guessing that built up soot and gunk inside those particular cases might have collected either moisture or some kind of oil or solvent in the process of handling them after firing and before loading.  Dropping the ball powder down in the dirty case and then shoving a bullet down on top of it all may have either contaminated the powder or blocked the flash hole sufficiently to prevent proper ignition.  If the other rounds made with the same primers, powder and bullets in clean cases fired properly it seems to be the only variable not accounted for, no?   :hmm   

    I guess my question is why would you not treat these cases the same way you treat the others?  Almost sounds like you were trying to induce some sort of failure through lack of proper case handling. 
    « Last Edit: July 27, 2019, 04:12:16 pm by coelacanth »
    " A republic, if you can keep it. "
                                                  Benjamin Franklin

    Pwc

    • Full Member
    • **
    • Posts: 100
    Re: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
    « Reply #5 on: July 27, 2019, 04:45:43 pm »
    It's only these 40 or so old cases that I don't clean

    And it's only these cases you're having trouble with, duh.

    Curmudgeon

    • Sr. Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 583
    Re: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
    « Reply #6 on: July 27, 2019, 04:51:13 pm »
    I'm guessing that built up soot and gunk inside those particular cases might have collected either moisture or some kind of oil or solvent in the process of handling them after firing and before loading.  Dropping the ball powder down in the dirty case and then shoving a bullet down on top of it all may have either contaminated the powder or blocked the flash hole sufficiently to prevent proper ignition.  If the other rounds made with the same primers, powder and bullets in clean cases fired properly it seems to be the only variable not accounted for, no?   :hmm   

    I guess my question is why would you not treat these cases the same way you treat the others?  Almost sounds like you were trying to induce some sort of failure through lack of proper case handling.

    Yes that is the only variable.

    Reason why I don't treat them the same, is that they were pretty dirty, and used when I picked them up at the range.  I didn't want to toss them in with MY brass, and have them get mixed up in with it.  I figured these cases have seen better days, and I just thought I would use them for oddball stuff, and test loads.

    OK one more variable, and THIS MAY BE THE ANSWER.

    I just noticed that I backed-off the crimp on those rounds.  Probably because I was pulling some bullets, and trying different things.  My normal rounds have a nice, tight crimp

    I think it's a long shot, but perhaps the primer strike was enough to "push" the propellant, to the point where the bullet actually moved into the barrel.  Thereby creating a space at the bottom of the case between flash hole and powder?  With the bullet not being crimped, that may have happened.

    Sounds pretty far fetched, if you ask me.  But nothing surprises me anymore.

    ynotaz

    • Sr. Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 649
    Re: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
    « Reply #7 on: July 28, 2019, 07:20:11 am »
    Just taking a guess here. 

    The FBI wrote a memo years ago saying WD40 deactivates primers.  I’m wondering if this isn’t the results of oil, sizing lube, or cleaning solvent that entered the cartridge causing some of the powder to be deactivated and clump, leaving only a small amount of active powder.  That small amount of active powder caused a squib and ejected the wad of powder with the bullet.
    I gotta think about a new sig.  Hmmmmm?

    Curmudgeon

    • Sr. Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 583
    Re: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
    « Reply #8 on: July 28, 2019, 07:48:50 am »
    Just taking a guess here. 

    The FBI wrote a memo years ago saying WD40 deactivates primers.  I’m wondering if this isn’t the results of oil, sizing lube, or cleaning solvent that entered the cartridge causing some of the powder to be deactivated and clump, leaving only a small amount of active powder.  That small amount of active powder caused a squib and ejected the wad of powder with the bullet.

    Those cases haven't been subjected to anything.  I shoot 'em.  toss 'em into a bag, and inspect them for cracks and splits before I use them again.  I don't use 'em very much.  Just phasing them out.

    That no-crimp issue is still swimming around in my brain

    rubinschmidt

    • Full Member
    • **
    • Posts: 199
    Re: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
    « Reply #9 on: July 28, 2019, 08:57:02 am »
    When I first read the original post I wondered about crimp too, since their are plenty of warnings about 296 and its clones requiring a heavy crimp to obtain proper ignition. Honestly I think any experimentation with this powder under these conditions would not yield repeatable results that would be useful, but then I don't know what the goal of the experiment is.

    I would bet the lunch bill that this wouldn't be happening with faster, easier to ignite powders. Many of us have done firelapping with just a few of grains of bullseye with a "loosely" held bullet got a good burn and the bullet out the barrel.

    5632

    • Sr. Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 902
    Re: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
    « Reply #10 on: July 28, 2019, 04:43:11 pm »
    Just taking a guess here. 

    The FBI wrote a memo years ago saying WD40 deactivates primers.  I’m wondering if this isn’t the results of oil, sizing lube, or cleaning solvent that entered the cartridge causing some of the powder to be deactivated and clump, leaving only a small amount of active powder.  That small amount of active powder caused a squib and ejected the wad of powder with the bullet.
    How interesting.  This kind of information and other is the number one reason I enjoy this site.  I want to continue learning.

    JarheadAZ

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1106
    Re: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
    « Reply #11 on: July 29, 2019, 07:25:30 am »
    I would toss the cases. "When in doubt, throw it out". No cases, no problem.

    Yes, brass is expensive. So is time and worry. I'm not rich, but I'd rather toss the first than have to go through the other.

    Greg
    Not lookin' to be in a gunfight, but if you find yourself mixed up in one, it might be kinda nice to have a gun...

    "Faint heart never filled a flush" - Brett Maverick

    Good marksmanship is no accident - JarheadNY

    rubinschmidt

    • Full Member
    • **
    • Posts: 199
    Re: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
    « Reply #12 on: July 29, 2019, 08:47:18 am »
    Also, if I want to make sure I can identify certain cases, I lightly file a couple of small notches on the rim in a consistent location in relation to the headstamp. Such as at 11:00 and 1:00 o'clock. This way I can clean them, mix them, etc but they will always be identifiable. A note in my loadbook tells me what I did to them and why I marked them.

    anm2_man

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1889
    Re: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
    « Reply #13 on: July 29, 2019, 08:54:59 am »
    Notes:   A primed only cartridge will move the projectile into the barrel.   How far it goes in, depends on the primer and barrel throat wear.  I know from experience, a magnum primer will advance a projectile 1/2" to 1" into the barrel.  But in this circumstance, lack of full powder burn was the culprit. 

    Lack of crimp could easily cause part of this problem not allowing the powder to fully ignite.  Winchester 296 is in the top 30-35% of the faster burning powders.  It should have no problems getting a full burn.  I mostly use Alliant 2400 in my 44mag loads, which seemed to always result in pretty clean burn but is a little slower than 296.  For a large flame effect Accurate No 7, but it is slower than either the other, and results in lots of unburned powder in the barrel. 

    Un-clean cases ?  I've loaded dirty rifle/pistik cases and never had any problem, but I don't do it on a regular basis.   Where is "Flash" when you need him.

    "Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands around, and smart people are reloading."

    Curmudgeon

    • Sr. Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 583
    Re: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
    « Reply #14 on: July 29, 2019, 09:06:10 am »
    Notes:   A primed only cartridge will move the projectile into the barrel.   How far it goes in, depends on the primer and barrel throat wear.  I know from experience, a magnum primer will advance a projectile 1/2" to 1" into the barrel.  But in this circumstance, lack of full powder burn was the culprit. 

    Lack of crimp could easily cause part of this problem not allowing the powder to fully ignite.  Winchester 296 is in the top 30-35% of the faster burning powders.  It should have no problems getting a full burn.  I mostly use Alliant 2400 in my 44mag loads, which seemed to always result in pretty clean burn but is a little slower than 296.  For a large flame effect Accurate No 7, but it is slower than either the other, and results in lots of unburned powder in the barrel. 

    Un-clean cases ?  I've loaded dirty rifle/pistik cases and never had any problem, but I don't do it on a regular basis.   Where is "Flash" when you need him.

    I'm down to about 25 of those cases now.  Will shit-can them pretty soon now.  I have 11 of the rounds left.  Gave them a full crimp yesterday.  Hope to shoot them this seek, next week the latest.

    Always used 2400 myself, for my .44 mags.  Never had any issues.  Forgot how I even ended up with this 8 lbs of 296, but it's getting low.  Have over 25 lbs of 2400 sitting right behind it, ready to go.

    Curmudgeon

    • Sr. Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 583
    Re: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
    « Reply #15 on: August 01, 2019, 12:10:49 pm »
    I guess I give up.

    Went to the range yesterday.  Brought a box of 50 of my "nicely" loaded .44's.  Clean, polished, brass, nice tight crimp.  Shot the whole box.  No probs

    Also brought those last 11 rounds that I had left in the crappy old cases, BUT, I gave them a good crimp before I went.

    On the ninth round, I had the same thing happen ........  EL SQUIBBO !  Bullet is actually still in the barrel.  Gotta knock it out later or tomorrow.

    SO.  The lack of crimp wasn't the problem, or a contributing factor.

    HAD TO BE powder contamination.  How?   ........     I'll NEVER know the answer yo that one

    Clifffalling

    • Full Member
    • **
    • Posts: 459
    Re: They are NOT squibs, BUT essentially ????
    « Reply #16 on: September 05, 2019, 06:39:25 pm »
    Poor crimp, moisture contamination. Between moisture invasion and contaminates already in the unclean cases, mixed together and clumped the powder. Primer is just enough to push the bullet through the cone.  Powder absorbed the moisture so the primer was unaffected.
    IMHO
    Flagtaff: Poverty with a view.

    ArizonaGunOwners.com

    • Advertisement
    • ***