|
Post by KerryB on Jun 21, 2009 22:57:14 GMT -5
If folks have facts, then let it be known, if not then perhaps we should let this die AGAIN for the umpteenth time! edge. I assume this incident will follow the lead of those that preceded it. We will never witness any facts.........we will all speculate as to cause.........it will all quietly fade from memory.........some day another incident may emerge. But, as long as it stays civil.........it is interesting reading and i appreciate all opinions whether they mirror mine or not. Thanks guys! KerryB
|
|
|
Post by olegburn on Jun 22, 2009 6:53:47 GMT -5
Buying unwanted ML-II's. $100 per dosen. ;D You pay the shipping.
|
|
|
Post by edge on Jun 22, 2009 7:22:45 GMT -5
SNIP edge since you designed yours with a thicker barrel and without the external threads I am led to believe that your confidence in the Savage design was less than 100 percent. Or perhaps you wanted 110 percent heavy on the side of safety. I will hush now because I have already said a lot more than I know. Ozark IMO, the Savage design is fine, and when I bought mine, many years ago, it appeared to be stronger because the sabots were weaker and were much more of a safety valve. Many have also moved to slower powders with longer powder columns. This moves peak pressure closer to the front sight holes. IMO, the design is still plenty strong, but can be made stronger with a smaller diameter breechplug, or a shorter breechplug, or a thicker barrel. I have never liked opposing threads, inside and outside diameter, on a barrel in the area of peak pressure so I designed mine differently. Some folks have gas cutting on the breechplug snout. This appears to be evidence of gas leakage. Why some have this I don't know. It could be machining variables or it could be that the gun owner is not tightening the breechplug all of the way. This is somewhat troubling to me. I would shoot a stock Savage ML with standard loads with confidence. IMO, so would Toby! edge.
|
|
|
Post by rjhans53 on Jun 22, 2009 7:24:14 GMT -5
olegburn, I had thought about putting something to the effect of your last post except I was going along the lines of 100 bucks ea + shipping. But if you get any bites on yours I'll take ALL that you don't want
|
|
|
Post by grouse on Jun 22, 2009 7:31:28 GMT -5
It could be machining variables or it could be that the gun owner is not tightening the breechplug all of the way. This is somewhat troubling to me. edge. That's alway's a possibility no doubt. I think it's mainly from the breech plug working loose. I actually tighten mine pretty darn tight so it doesn't work loose.
|
|
|
Post by edge on Jun 22, 2009 7:51:06 GMT -5
Your entitled to your opinion right or wrong. It just seems like you are supporting Toby and not Savage. That is what i'm surprised of right or wrong. Hmmmm..... Perhaps you need to re-read this thread from the beginning! First, you started the thread and the later asked why Toby keeps bringing this up! IMO, this is NOT the incident from 2004 so it is fair game. Did Savage let us know about this rifle blowing up? While you may attribute an agenda to Toby's postings, and I would agree , at least he brought this to our attention. If you only want to hear good news then stay away from newspapers and the Internet! Now up until that point in the thread I had only responded to why the threads were removed on the current design of the breechplug. IMO, my reply was clearly on Savages side on this. I then remained silent until dougedwards, and KerryB seemed to make the debate more personal ( against Toby ). At that point I pointed out that the rifle in the current discussion was NOT Toby's, so the person loading/shooting it was NOT Toby! Since Toby was not involved with it then how does "sour grapes" enter into the barrel burst? Personally, if you re-read the thread from the beginning I don't think that I "took sides". If you want to continue into my reply to ozark, I only described business in general in regard to litigation, and nothing specific to Savage. Business will generally do what is best for their bottom line! Coal companies can make mining safer, car companies can make cars safer, asbestos manufacturing could have been made safer or eliminated sooner, and rifle companies can probably make better and safer firearms. I guess my question to you would be: If you don't know the cause of a rifle exploding, why would you take sides? Personally I would like to know what testing was performed on all of the barrels that have bulged or exploded. That is NOT taking sides, that is just asking for answers, IMO. edge.
|
|
|
Post by olegburn on Jun 22, 2009 7:53:49 GMT -5
rjhans53,this safe/notsafe discussions sends ML-II market sliding somewhat. ;D That may get some "investors" dumping there stock,and like a savvy shark broker I'm feeling blood in water. $90 a dozen! Now seriously: how many actually do have that cutting marks? And if needed what can be done about it? If enough folks here have that problem we can approach Savage collectively and see whether the fix is needed. Yes,I'am an optimist and proud of it. And Savage will listen and they will also decide to use better barrels (from Pac-nor or Lilja) and will offer them in .45 and .40 calibers. Third pillar ,integral Piccatiny rail on top of receiver and new Accu-Stock bedding block in laminate,extra stud in forend for bipod. WIll someone pitch in? Now I'm being overly optimistic,I think.
|
|
|
Post by KerryB on Jun 22, 2009 8:30:56 GMT -5
While you may attribute an agenda to Toby's postings, and I would agree , at least he brought this to our attention. If you only want to hear good news then stay away from newspapers and the Internet! Personally I would like to know what testing was performed on all of the barrels that have bulged or exploded. That is NOT taking sides, that is just asking for answers, IMO. edge. I couldn't agree more! Ditto............
|
|
|
Post by grouse on Jun 22, 2009 8:41:37 GMT -5
IMO, the Savage rifle is safe when used properly, and I don't think that I have ever said anything else. But I did design mine with a thicker barrel and without the external threads edge. Edge, After re-reading i guess we will agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Jun 22, 2009 9:02:30 GMT -5
I have not considered any of the individual discussions here as taking sides but only offerings of thoughts and opinions. This subject is critical to us as shooters and hunters as safety is of utmost importance and to just disregard the matter because it may be somewhat controversial would be a mistake IMO.
I really would like to hear from Toby Bridges and have him state his case with facts instead of innuendos. For all I know he may be right about the Savage breach plug but until he offers more reasonable and explainable evidence I am suspect of his motives. I have a voice mail in to Joe Degrande and am waiting for a reply. We will see.
Doug
|
|
|
Post by edge on Jun 22, 2009 9:02:53 GMT -5
IMO, the Savage rifle is safe when used properly, and I don't think that I have ever said anything else. But I did design mine with a thicker barrel and without the external threads edge. Edge, After re-reading i guess we will agree to disagree. If You think that I have stated that the rifle is unsafe then please let me know. Seriously , I will modify my post if I think that it reads as though I have implied otherwise. edge.
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Jun 22, 2009 11:14:29 GMT -5
This has always been a heated subject whenever it gets brought up. Face it guys, Toby's rifle and all the other ones that look just like his are a result of a pressure burst centered 2-2.5" in front of the breechplug. It is the area of max chamber pressure and where I would expect one to bulge or rupture from over pressure. As far as what caused the over pressure that is speculation. Toby is quick to claim design flaw of the breechplug but I doubt the design caused the rupture. The one shard did break at the breechplug after the burst but that is the thinnest part of the barrel. If you bend SS far enough it will break, the bottom two shards were contained somewhat by the stock which is why they didn't break at the breechplug. Why didn't the barrel just bulge instead of rupture? I do not know, a metallurgical analysis might rule out a flaw in the alloy. But what if the barrel was already bulged from a previous shot and then the bullet obturated into the bulge and as the bullet was squeezed back to bore diameter caused the pressure spike beyond the redline? That might explain why the sabot didn't fail and release pressure. There I am speculating, just another "what if".
We were not there during any of the "incidents" and the only one Toby was at was his. We have no first hand knowledge of the other shooters skill/experience levels and they sure were not shooting under laboratory conditions. We have already seen a person try to shoot 4756 instead of 4759 and how many shooters look for or can even tell if they have a bulge in the field? The most common mistake now and in the future will be a load error.
If Toby or Savage wants to hire HP White Labs to analyze a incident have at it. I'm sure they will not charge more then $100,000 just to look at one or $.5-1 million to do destructive testing. I am disappointed Savage has not addressed this issue more, even RW has kept somewhat quiet about it. But then again one word slip would give a shyster lawyer a crack to stick a wedge in.
For now I have no fear, I pay attention to my safety and maintenance procedures. I know the the biggest probability of cause for a "incident" will be me so I pay close attention.
|
|
|
Post by paulslund on Jun 22, 2009 12:22:41 GMT -5
...If you bend SS far enough it will break... Hi Rossman. Does this mean that the regular blued barrel would have less a tendency to burst under these conditions/circumstances? Just curious, Thanks, Paul.
|
|
larry
8 Pointer
Posts: 172
|
Post by larry on Jun 22, 2009 12:38:58 GMT -5
Would a recessed plug make the situation better, worse or no difference?
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Jun 22, 2009 13:42:36 GMT -5
Stainless can be a bit more, lets say brittle. But high quality chrome moly isn't far behind. The secret to barrel steel isn't so much the raw material but the heat treatment, hardening and stress relieving the barrel gets. Don't get me wrong, you still need quality properties in the alloy but the processes performed to it is just as important.
|
|
|
Post by KerryB on Jun 22, 2009 15:07:36 GMT -5
This has always been a heated subject whenever it gets brought up. Face it guys, Toby's rifle and all the other ones that look just like his are a result of a pressure burst centered 2-2.5" in front of the breechplug. It is the area of max chamber pressure and where I would expect one to bulge or rupture from over pressure. As far as what caused the over pressure that is speculation. Toby is quick to claim design flaw of the breechplug but I doubt the design caused the rupture. The one shard did break at the breechplug after the burst but that is the thinnest part of the barrel. If you bend SS far enough it will break, the bottom two shards were contained somewhat by the stock which is why they didn't break at the breechplug. Why didn't the barrel just bulge instead of rupture? I do not know, a metallurgical analysis might rule out a flaw in the alloy. But what if the barrel was already bulged from a previous shot and then the bullet obturated into the bulge and as the bullet was squeezed back to bore diameter caused the pressure spike beyond the redline? That might explain why the sabot didn't fail to release pressure. There I am speculating, just another "what if". My thoughts exactly...........very well written............
|
|
orion
8 Pointer
Posts: 128
|
Post by orion on Jun 22, 2009 16:14:58 GMT -5
I read TBs alert, and it is a bit scary when you see it as all blow ups or kabooms are. But his statement does not match what the photo shows. Yes, the alert is about another kaboom that apparently looks like the photo he posted.
No names, photos, or load data listed of the other persons kaboom.
The photo of his kaboom does not show a failure of the area he notes that is weakened by design in back of the shoulder of the breach plug. When a barrel blows a single point is enlarged to the point where it breaks, obviously the area about 2" to 3" ahead of the plug on his photo The missing piece must have had another bulge down by the recoil lug also? Makes no sense. I have never seen a blown barrel or pipe or what ever that had several bulges in different areas.
How the heck can you go from a gas cut leak to a detonation chamber is beyond me? What the heck is a detonation chamber? Maybe there was nuclear fussion or fission going on in there to (just as plausible). A gas leak and increased pressure maybe. Powder granules into the space and burning maybe. What caused the detonation or the nuclear fussion or fission?
This appears to be conjecture or lying to me.
Some industrious person should mill or file or grind some big cuts in a standard breach plug, and run a test. (or maybe Toby is willing to, except now no one would believe him anyway). The cuts could be made way deeper, and also could be concentric and numerous around the rim of the plug, etc. Provide all data, and all parameters, and then everyone could comment.
If I had the finances I would certainly do it. If someone wants to donate money or materials I will gladly conduct a test. I will donate my rifle. If fifty guys send 10 bucks thats $500 and I will do it. Or I will send my $10 bucks to someone else. In this case its worth it. In fact I will post the details of the proposed test before doing it so all the "peers" can comment and review the scope of the test before hand. Someone could come and witness the test. That way the experiment will include all of the ideas of the knowledgeable before it is conducted, to make it as objective as possible. Toby could even comment and attend the test.
For example you could keep increasing the depth, size and number of cuts until the whole thing blows, if it did not blow with just one very small cut. Or conversely you could start with a few and if it blew a barrel you could decrease the number or size. Of course condition two would mean more finances. One or two tests could provide some good data. Maybee not definitive, but could provide a basis to present to Savage if Toby was correct in his statements.
Any thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by edge on Jun 22, 2009 17:20:18 GMT -5
orion, do you know what a labyrinth seal is? I suspect that you don't! Read up on how it works, then understand that the breechplug is as long as it is to get the peak pressure past the barrel nut. Also understand that the barrel in front of the breechplug is 0.270 in. thick and that at the front of the snout it is only 0.192 in. thick. edge.
|
|
|
Post by rossman40 on Jun 22, 2009 19:21:29 GMT -5
Shotgun AR-10 Not all are a "elmer fudd" split.
|
|
|
Post by olegburn on Jun 22, 2009 19:53:06 GMT -5
Edge,if one to follow TB's theory that I understand is: expanding gases flow thru gas cutting and into the slight gap between the BP snout and barrel and cause a detonation, then most severe damage would start right in affected area which is at the BP. To me,and I don't claim to be scientist,it looks though as the barrel started bulging past the BP by about 2-3" where the bulge is at maximum. Once barrel exploded it started peeling and one of those "peels" (unrestricted by stock) separated and hit the scope and was gone taking half the scope with it. If the detonation started at the "weak" spot do you not think that it would go from that point and forward? I'm very curious to hear your commentary and others too. Now to "detonation chamber"-I shared my opinion earlier. Past the BP's shoulder and snout there is not much in terms of containing pressure-threads are very coarse and unless one is to seal it with a lot of paste and teflon tape it is likely to bleed the gases into the action. I'd like to someone to convince me otherwise. Now I'm all ears and have very open mind. I don't think it is speculating as I base on available pics.
|
|
|
Post by olegburn on Jun 22, 2009 20:08:14 GMT -5
Edge,you mentioned labyrinth seal which I imagine in this case will be the the BP's threads that will buffer the leaking gas but is that seal strong enough to contain all the pressure? If it was,then wouldn't the damage start where the barrel is thinnest (snout area)? and not where the bulge is at its biggest?
|
|
|
Post by edge on Jun 22, 2009 21:44:18 GMT -5
To the two prior posts.
I don't know what is meant by "detonation chamber". The difference between a good load and an overload is the difference in fractions of a millisecond! ( if you burn X amount of powder in 0.35 ms vs in 0.25 ms might be 10's of thousands of PSI )
If powder gets into a small space the pressure will be higher than the same powder in a large space. The gas cutting on some breechplugs show that gasses are moving at high velocity. This is the same thing that makes your vent liner wear. The higher the pressure the faster the wear. I admit to not knowing where these gasses are going except into the snout area.
As to the threads, the threads are well above the strength needed to contain rearward movement. The standard Savage load should only exerts about 8,000 pounds of total pressure on the breechplug. An 11/16 thread has a fair margin of error and then the bolt will contain some pressure.
The weakest link is probably the 90 degree cut at the end of the snout under the OD threads and then the barrel where the rear site is drilled.
edge.
|
|
orion
8 Pointer
Posts: 128
|
Post by orion on Jun 23, 2009 7:53:19 GMT -5
Edge, I have never heard of a labrynth seal, and do not know what one is. But I am not sure how that is releavant to my previous post. Probably my poor writting did not get my point across well. I have no question that the threads on the plug can hold the pressure of a normal load. I always assumed that there was free flow of gasses back past the unthreaded portion of the plug, until I saw Toby's post and read this thread. I also understand the concept of pressure peaking at different points in a barrel. From Toby's post it appears it peaked in front of the breach plug not back at the thinnest point of barrel thickness. This is only my perception.
I don't have a problem with Toby's conclusion regarding the gas cutting or that part of the barrel being the weakest. That is why I am involved in this post, it concern's me. The only part I have a problem with is the jump to the part where he calls it a detonation. I guess you can say a detonation is just a really fast burn, as there is a technical definition, I am not going down that road. From what I see, regardless of where the peak is, if pressure is flowing back towards the bolt, it could be enough to blow out the thinnest portion of the barrel. I have no question about the barrel being the weakest at that point or that gas can flow into this area if cutting occurs, or if a breach plug is out of tolerance, or not screwed in all the way. This is why I suggest he or someone else do an experiment to attempt to prove or disprove his theory. The experiment could only prove a basis as there are obviously a whole lot of variables and it would be a start on eliminating some.
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Jun 23, 2009 12:40:25 GMT -5
My question is I believe a reasonable one that we should all have the answer to. HAS THERE EVER BEEN A BLOW UP OR BULGED BARREL WHEN THE LOAD WAS POSITIVELY KNOWN TO BE WITHIN THE BOUNDRIES OF SAVAGE RECOMMENDED LOADS? Ramrods, double loads of powder or bullets are not to the considered. I ask this because we all know of the experimenting that is done with duplex, non standard powders, modified bullets, sabotless loading etc. Consider standard book loads only. If the answer is no then I suspect that many shooters will experience a feeling of relief. Ozark
|
|
|
Post by Jon on Jun 23, 2009 16:03:48 GMT -5
Ozark, Very well put. The only problem being if I remember correctly Toby's was suposed to be a standard book load? A honest answer from every bulge which seem like a few. and the couple of blowups which seem to have come up recently Since the savage has been around for quite a time what has changed? Jon
|
|
|
Post by Jon on Jun 23, 2009 16:10:03 GMT -5
Just a question if pressure in the thread area of the b/p is bad, from what I can see on my smi b/p it seals at the back of the plug and the thread area seem's to see full pressure all the time? Jon
|
|
|
Post by boarhog on Jun 23, 2009 16:30:54 GMT -5
Ozark, I anylized my "bulge" three ways from Sunday. I am convinced that none of the usual suspects were at fault. I went over it dozens of times, re-weighing powder, testing to see how much powder I could cram into the powder vials, etc. etc. to infinity and beyond! The only thing I could not conclusivly eliminate to my own satisfaction was a failure to seat the bullet/sabot firmly enough, and I doubt that happened either because I was leaning most of my full weight (260+) on the ramrod to seat the bullet.
The only way to prove conclusivly that it is possible to blow up, or bulge, a Savage with normal loads is to do so under controlled laboratory conditions. Anecdotal assurances will never be definitive enough for the minds on this board. The only dog I have in this fight is my own safety, and more than that, the safety of my children and grandchildren that may be shooting my Savage. I don't care who's ego gets bruised, or if anyone has some unknown motive behind fear mongering or mud slinging, I want to KNOW that my Savage is safe to shoot. If that takes Savage hiring HP White, or if some other honest group or individual that is interested in finding the truth, then that is fine by me. None of us may live long enough to see such a test completed. Much like the low load volume blow-ups of slow burning powders, I don't think they were able to re-create that event. But all the loading manuals caution against reducing certain loads, just in case. I know that some of those "Never happen in a million years" events do sometimes happen.
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Jun 23, 2009 18:04:35 GMT -5
bearhog, Nothing with safety instructions is absolutely safe. We are bombarded with all kinds of steps to be safe. Wear shatter proof glasses, wear hearing protection etc. etc. These saftey precautions says clearly that danger exists. Manufacturing companies like Savage, Honda or vacuum sweepers comes with a bunch of laywers approved safety instructions all designed to protect the company against lawsuits. But the bottom line is if it is a firearm there is danger involved and accidents will continue to happen. Proving that a design flaw caused a blow up could be very difficult. Expert witnesses would look at the hundred of thousands that didn't fail and be skeptical about the one that did. I think we have to elect to trust a product or not use it. I trust the Savage MLII if cleaned, loaded and used according to Savage instructions. But I don't trust myself altering this or that with loads and modifications. I am sure that there are many Savage users that are careless about their routines. More will bulge, more will blow but it is highly unlikely that it will happen to the person who is careful to apply all safety procedures. It is my firm belief that The Savage MLII is as safe as the other firearms that are sold. If you ride a motor cycle to your shooting range I believe your greatest danger is getting to the range and back. JMO
|
|
|
Post by grouse on Jun 24, 2009 21:38:17 GMT -5
Just a question if pressure in the thread area of the b/p is bad, from what I can see on my smi b/p it seals at the back of the plug and the thread area seem's to see full pressure all the time? Jon SMI really didn't have a good breech plug a few years ago. How is your plug?
|
|
|
Post by rbinar on Jun 24, 2009 23:29:19 GMT -5
Ozark, I anylized my "bulge" three ways from Sunday. I am convinced that none of the usual suspects were at fault. I went over it dozens of times, re-weighing powder, testing to see how much powder I could cram into the powder vials, etc. etc. to infinity and beyond! The only thing I could not conclusivly eliminate to my own satisfaction was a failure to seat the bullet/sabot firmly enough, and I doubt that happened either because I was leaning most of my full weight (260+) on the ramrod to seat the bullet. The only way to prove conclusivly that it is possible to blow up, or bulge, a Savage with normal loads is to do so under controlled laboratory conditions. Anecdotal assurances will never be definitive enough for the minds on this board. The only dog I have in this fight is my own safety, and more than that, the safety of my children and grandchildren that may be shooting my Savage. I don't care who's ego gets bruised, or if anyone has some unknown motive behind fear mongering or mud slinging, I want to KNOW that my Savage is safe to shoot. If that takes Savage hiring HP White, or if some other honest group or individual that is interested in finding the truth, then that is fine by me. None of us may live long enough to see such a test completed. Much like the low load volume blow-ups of slow burning powders, I don't think they were able to re-create that event. But all the loading manuals caution against reducing certain loads, just in case. I know that some of those "Never happen in a million years" events do sometimes happen. I'm not sure what you'd want. It seems like a small contradiction in terms. First you mention a test for safety then you suggest that such a test would take forever. Don't get me wrong, please? I think I get the gist of the thought: you want to know it's safe: period. But how to prove that is not answerable in an absolute manner. However here are some thoughts. I have an original barrel off my 2001 model flat rear 10ML-II. It was one of the first second generation rifles. The barrel has 4171 recorded shots and perhaps 200 fouling and unrecorded shots. The loads shot through it are mostly 42-44 grains of either N110 or Imr-SR4759. Every shot was a sabot of some kind no conical bullets. However some duplex loads, a few Lil Gun loads as well as heavy bullet loads were fired in the working life of the barrel. I'm up to allowing anyone to inspect the barrel for damage. I feel that NO barrel (THAT"S NO AS IN NONE) should be shot past 3500 shots so this barrel is not on a rifle. Even if I violated my own rule in letting it go past the maximum it is un-damaged. Besides this rifle I have an embarrassing number of shots fired by my own as well as a few hundred other shooter's rifles. I can't get one to fail. What does that mean? Maybe nothing if you feel lots of shots are not enough. What I'm saying is you had an incident where a rifle was damaged. I never had such an incident. Can I convince you it's safe? Can you convince me it's not? Here's the thing about those who have called for testing or a test. I've spent nearly $6000 in ammunition and powder alone. I've been given many times more than that. It may sound pathetic but I've avaraged 3 trips a week to the shooting range for the last 9 years to test this rifle. Why can't I get it to have an incident? Now some will note that lately I've been shooting the lessor calibers. That's true but I never completely gave up 50 caliber. I take a brand new production 50 caliber to the range about every other time I go. It has a stock plug, barrel and action. So tell me how to make it unsafe and I will. Of course I have to restrict shooting to what has been mentioned in the past: a known good load with reasonable history behind it.
|
|