6CM Case separation new brass (near fatal).

[jk80]

The mind believes what it wants to believe, but not once did I say he should put his face on the gun.
I suggested a destructive test. Would you put your face on a gun you were expecting to be destroyed? Smarten up.

Smarten up. Wow. Buy another action, spin on a barrel and try to blow it up. For what purpose? Without doing it in controlled conditions, whats it prove. Op sounds like he talked to people about just that, but was having problems finding the right ones to go to. Even doing so won't give an answer. How do we know what was defective the first time. People have been trying to figure out why a light charge in a pistol cartridge sometimes causes problems. I've never heard a definitive answer to that in spite of much testing. Read his posts and then take the advise of your last line in your last post. I'll stand by my last post, throwing rocks at someone asking for help serves no point, unless the point is to make you feel superior to someone.

 

[Tokay444]

For what purpose? For the purpose of knowing if an accurate and lower than max charge of that powder was the cause.

 

[Tokay444]

But again, it’s all moot since OP doesn’t want to answer questions. Only ask them.

 

[jk80]

For what purpose? For the purpose of knowing if an accurate and lower than max charge of that powder was the cause.

A completely different action, barrel, and smiting proves nothing. What happened to the first action is all that matters. You could do a complete similar build, using the same components and shoot it till the cows come home. What does that prove. I've been involved with non destructive testing for years and have a fairly good knowledge of metals and heat treating. The original action could have had a defect in it that wasn't readily apparent without testing. Bottom line is we may never know. I just don't think it's good to make someone feel worse over a bad situation. I wouldn't respond to a question posed like that either. Oh well, I'm done. Shoot well and stay safe.

 

[wkdickinson]

Are you really suggesting trying to duplicate a near fatal accident?? One thing I haven't seen till now on this site was someone throwing rocks at someone asking for help. That's what I admired about this site. Now I read someone suggesting to replicate conditions that darn near proved fatal to the person and you want him to take another try at it. Unbelievable!

That's not at all what was being suggested. He has spent lots of money already, so anther $700 is not a big deal. Nobody in their right mind would put their face on the check piece and pull the trigger, but you can rig it to shoot remotely.

I have read every post on this thread. I am very perplexed with the OP's actions. He engaged an attorney, yet he cut the action, against his attorney's advice. He destroyed the powder that could have been the root cause of the problem - REALLY! He hasn't answered a number of very specific and salient questions, from very knowledgeable forum members.

He says he is done looking - not sure after his actions there is anywhere to look anymore. I'm glad he is mending and I truly hope he has no long-term problem's from this. Unfortunately, for the rest of us, we are left with nothing but questions.

 

[jk80]

That's not at all what was being suggested. He has spent lots of money already, so anther $700 is not a big deal. Nobody in their right mind would put their face on the check piece and pull the trigger, but you can rig it to shoot remotely.

I have read every post on this thread. I am very perplexed with the OP's actions. He engaged an attorney, yet he cut the action, against his attorney's advice. He destroyed the powder that could have been the root cause of the problem - REALLY! He hasn't answered a number of very specific and salient questions, from very knowledgeable forum members.

He says he is done looking - not sure after his actions there is anywhere to look anymore. I'm glad he is mending and I truly hope he has no long-term problem's from this. Unfortunately, for the rest of us, we are left with nothing but questions.

I never once suggested he set up a test and fire it himself. That conclusion was jumped to by other people. I question what the test would accomplish. If the gun survived the test what is learned. THAT PARTICULAR GUN passed muster. It still doesn't address if the original gun was faulty. Another post by the OP was about controlled test. No one suggested any place to accomplish that the last I checked that thread. As I said I'm done beating this horse. As someone above said, this post needs locked and I'll not contribute to keeping it active. Shoot well and take care.

 

[Tokay444]

I never once suggested he set up a test and fire it himself. That conclusion was jumped to by other people. I question what the test would accomplish. If the gun survived the test what is learned. THAT PARTICULAR GUN passed muster. It still doesn't address if the original gun was faulty. Another post by the OP was about controlled test. No one suggested any place to accomplish that the last I checked that thread. As I said I'm done beating this horse. As someone above said, this post needs locked and I'll not contribute to keeping it active. Shoot well and take care.

If the same equal powder charge of the same powder doesn’t blow up the new gun, and shows no signs of pressure (see in excess of 100,000 psi, even if the gun doesn’t blow up, you’re going to know you had an issue) he can rule out the bad powder and leave powder company alone.

 

[Dub]

this thread needs to die