View Full Version : Hornady .223 - 55 FMJ Warning
wedgehead30
11-26-10, 18:35
Just got a heads-up from an out of state PD.
"OUR DEPARTMENT HAS EXPERIENCED AMMUNITION FAILURE. THE AMMO IN QUESTION IS HORNADY 223 55GR TRAINING FMJ LOT#3070091. THE ROUNDS EXPLODED IN THE CHAMBER CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE RIFLES. THERE WERE NO INJURIES TO THE OFFICERS. THE WEAPONS WERE FIRED AND THE MAGAZINES EXPLODED AND FELL OUT OF THE WEAPONS. BOTH EXTRACTORS AND BOLT RELEASES WERE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED AND THE SHELL IS LODGED IN THE CHAMBERS. THE AR RIFLES WERE A BUSHMASTER AND A ROCK RIVER. HORNADY HAS BEEN CONTACTED AND ARE AWARE OF THE SITUATION."
This is the second failure involving this ammo in recent months that I'm aware of. One of our officers recently attended SRT training at the Ohio State patrol academy. During the training an officer using the same ammo, lot# unknown, had the same thing happen.
I can't offer any additional information.
Just a FYI for what it's worth.
Stay safe,
Scott
Wow. Tag for more on this.
Kinda sounds like tight chambers and real 5.56 ammo..I'm guessing, but the rifles in question are known for not always having a 5.56 chamber..
Interesting. I have a bunch of this ammo at home. I'll have to check to see what lot number mine is from. The training tap ammo is in .223, not 5.56 so I don't think that would be the cause of the malfunction.
StrikerFired
11-26-10, 19:50
Please keep this thread updated with information when you get it if you could. I use this ammo myself (although I'm not sure of the Lot Number) and I've had no ill effects. I'm running them through a Stag 5.56 upper...
Tight chamber and real 5.56 ammo is guess one.Not sure how this would cause a case failure. I will bet weak case, weak case head. This typically causes mag damage and or mag blow out. Brass case? or steel. If brass I will bet a brass case that is either to soft or to hard.
But what the hell do I know.
Matt
wedgehead30
11-26-10, 21:34
Please keep this thread updated with information when you get it if you could. I use this ammo myself (although I'm not sure of the Lot Number) and I've had no ill effects. I'm running them through a Stag 5.56 upper...
I'm planning to get in touch with their POC and see if I can find out more and get an update. I'll post when I do.
Scott
I would blame Bushleague and RR before I would blame Hornady.
I would blame Bushleague and RR before I would blame Hornady.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. TAP Practice is supposed to be .223 pressure ammo. There is a big difference in pressure signs from a tight chamber and a hot load as opposed to an actual KB.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
Here's a thread from '07 that includes a post from someone saying that there were three KB's using Hornady training ammo during SRT training at the Ohio Highway Patrol academy. I couldn't find any verification on it, but it does stand out that it's at the same place one of your officers witnessed one.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=8343
Wedgehead, do you know if the SRT training is done with rifles owned by the academy, or does an officer take his issued/personal rifle?
My Hornady 55 grain Training Ammunition is definitely labeled .223 Remington vice 5.56mm. I recently started phasing out this ammunition and going back to XM193 as I found it would short-stroke in my KAC SR15E3. Switching to 5.56 loadings eliminated that problem, but I still have a few boxes of this ammo left. I am certainly interested in any additional information.
Hornady has a history of overpressure issies with their steel cased ammo. A few years back it was their 75gr 'match' load. I know several shooters who sent their ammo back for an exchange. I think this particular line of ammo is contracted out, not manufactured in house so QA\QC is not what it could be.
in my experience Hornady QC is not the best...once I've found 2 or 3 rounds in one box with the primer pocket not drilled :confused:
ETA: just read Sgt Gold post...I think we're talking about the same ammo....75g Match stuff..
Hornady has a history of overpressure issies with their steel cased ammo. A few years back it was their 75gr 'match' load. I know several shooters who sent their ammo back for an exchange. I think this particular line of ammo is contracted out, not manufactured in house so QA\QC is not what it could be.
From what I've picked up, the manufacturing of the steel cases is contracted out, but the assembly of the ammo is done by Hornady. I could be wrong on that.
I tend to agree this is more than just a tight chamber issue. When you get to the kB stage, it's more than just a hot laod, it's way over pressure.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. TAP Practice is supposed to be .223 pressure ammo. There is a big difference in pressure signs from a tight chamber and a hot load as opposed to an actual KB.
I agree. Hornady's steel cases are berdan primed. I don't know this as fact, but I'd bet anything that the primed cases are imported and then assembled with hornady's bullets here in the US.
As a former Hornady employee I can indeed confirm that the steel cased practice ammunition has had a checkered history.
All of the powers that be there know this. It is a recurring issue. They are quick to pay damages and replace equipment when these types of things happen. When I first started working there I was exited/hopeful to buy large quantities of this steel cased ammo at a deep employee discount. It turned out that this was never an option. I was quickly warned away by more than one employee from using ANY at all. (I will not mention their names/positions for fear of retaliation against them.) I even bought an older Bushmaster upper (sans bolt/carrier) from one of these guys there that had a "kaboom" from this ammo. The ejection port door would not close because of the bend/bulge/warp that was put into the ejection port area of the upper from the incident.
Now, in the 2 weeks that I spent in their loading area on assignment (I was a press operator), I saw what I suspected to be the cause for the majority of "kabooms" as related to the steel cased practice fodder. When talking to other employees that were in manning the loading stations (Specifically the steel cased training stuff), they themselves said that they felt that the Russian ammo (Wolf - etc) must have been produced in a different manner than how we were doing it in our facility- as we had great difficulty maintaining a consistent steel cased product. I agreed and watched/helped them load. I even was asked to assist in the QC process of a lot or two. What I found was in the case of the steel casings there was a tenancy to under crimp when first starting/testing the initial run for production. (Steel springs back in a different manner given the same force used than brass does - even when comparably soft). Then once the loadings were approved by downstairs on the test range, the production would commence...
Now it was mentioned repeatedly while I was there, the loading machines that were/are being used were frankly old as dirt, and had a habit of falling out of adjustment rather frequently. The machines that I saw being used (All of them minus the shot shell stuff –new production type machine, and large African game stuff- modified Hornady hand /progressive presses or the hated “Blue” Dillon hand operated progressive presses) were/are being used were of early WWII-Late WWI vintage - with modern day production alterations/updates done to them. Most ran remarkably well, but the complaint was that they still fell out of adjustment too often.
Back to the steel cased practice ammo...
Earlier I mentioned that the steel cases seemed to be under crimped at first. I personally helped re-crimp by hand, on a small "O" or "C" press, some 5000 steel cased training .223 rounds. After helping do this I asked if this was a common occurrence. The answer was yes. I asked if the training ammo had any specifications regarding bullet push and pull. The answer was "as long as it is crimped hard enough to keep the bullet in position" – this was worrisome to me. I even mentioned outright that steel stretches/crimps and has different elastic properties as compared to brass that seems similarly “Soft” or ductile. The chilling responding comment was – “it is just training stuff anyway, no big deal.”… - Ah yeah ok………
In the case of loading / high end re-loading there are Bullet “Push” / “Pull” specifications that manufacturers use (How much pressure, in pounds it takes to push the projectile from where it is crimped into the case mouth down into the case body itself), and Bullet pull which is the same except opposite. All military ammunition has specific push/pull requirements as part of their caliber/use specific TDP. Most if not all ammunition manufactures that care about quality, accuracy and consistency have ideal/target push/pull values established for their products – especially those that are intended for, or are likely to cycle through various types of self loading actions. Even some dangerous game loads have these specs due to their heavy recoil (to avoid “Bullet set back”).
Now let’s take into account the manufacturing consistency of the steel cases themselves. Now going from memory before Hornady had them change it, the cases were marked PPU on the bottom. The lacquer coated cases were and are manufactured overseas and shipped in to Hornady already primed. They are brought in by the “Barrel” (Large cardboard drum like containers similar to those that commercial/industrial powdered detergents come in) and stored at an off-site warehouse prior to their loading.
Taking into account the level of pay and incentive given to eastern bloc countries laborers to do their individual jobs well, and to maintain whatever their level of “Quality Control” that may or may not exist I can confidently say that there most likely exists a vastly higher level of inconsistencies in their finished products than compared to identical things produced here. In this case most likely varying thicknesses of the case walls of the cartridges, as somebody else mentioned undrilled flash holes in primer pockets, inadequately deep or completely uncut extractor grooves, inadequate / botched tempering of the work hardened casings , inconsistent thickness of the lacquer coating on said cases – etc. For all intents and purposes these specific steel casings "Could" be their seconds (I am not saying they are but who really knows without eyes on site.)
Honestly these are throw away items and are cheap and inexpensive for a reason – not only due to the material investment cost but workmanship and quality control.
Keeping workmanship in mind as both produced and seen by myself , the projectiles used in these practice cartridges are not of first quality. They are bullets culled from regular batch production runs that have disfigurements, inconsistent weights, improper materials used in their construction, improper lengths, accuracy issues, a combination of all of the above, etc, etc.
Now (I know it has been a long read) my professional assertion / belief is this: Once the press operator finds their machine has “Once again” fallen out of adjustment and the projectiles are not seated and crimped into place tight enough, that the operator adjusts the crimp die down too far and crimps the ever living piss out of the steel case neck, or does the same when hand crimping the unsatisfactory seated and crimped lot of cartridges that QC caught post machine assembly. Now it is basic science that the tighter you crimp the case neck the more pressure it takes to dislodge the projectile to release the pressure, in essence everything is staying bottled up longer before the crimp releases. This alone may be adequate enough to cause a “Kaboom”. But – add to it the higher possibility of a poorly manufactured case being thrown into the mix and things get more and more dangerous.
As was mentioned before, the reason that this training ammo is such a "Bargain" that it is made from imported steel cases and topped with second quality projectiles. At last I was informed there was markedly less hard specifications set for the actual production of these training rounds. Most (If not all) here understand "The Chart" in regards to quality, I would hold these "Bargain" training rounds as suspect as an "imported Oly carbine"..
---> APB
If underscrimped and neck tension is alreday poor, this could also be case of SEE.
It is for the reasons cited above that I don't shoot steel cased ammo. It's not worth it to save a few pennies.
As a former Hornady employee I can indeed confirm that the steel cased practice ammunition has had a checkered history.
All of the powers that be there know this. It is a recurring issue. They are quick to pay damages and replace equipment when these types of things happen. When I first started working there I was exited/hopeful to buy large quantities of this steel cased ammo at a deep employee discount. It turned out that this was never an option. I was quickly warned away by more than one employee from using ANY at all. (I will not mention their names/positions for fear of retaliation against them.) I even bought an older Bushmaster upper (sans bolt/carrier) from one of these guys there that had a "kaboom" from this ammo. The ejection port door would not close because of the bend/bulge/warp that was put into the ejection port area of the upper from the incident.
Now, in the 2 weeks that I spent in their loading area on assignment (I was a press operator), I saw what I suspected to be the cause for the majority of "kabooms" as related to the steel cased practice fodder. When talking to other employees that were in manning the loading stations (Specifically the steel cased training stuff), they themselves said that they felt that the Russian ammo (Wolf - etc) must have been produced in a different manner than how we were doing it in our facility- as we had great difficulty maintaining a consistent steel cased product. I agreed and watched/helped them load. I even was asked to assist in the QC process of a lot or two. What I found was in the case of the steel casings there was a tenancy to under crimp when first starting/testing the initial run for production. (Steel springs back in a different manner given the same force used than brass does - even when comparably soft). Then once the loadings were approved by downstairs on the test range, the production would commence...
Now it was mentioned repeatedly while I was there, the loading machines that were/are being used were frankly old as dirt, and had a habit of falling out of adjustment rather frequently. The machines that I saw being used (All of them minus the shot shell stuff –new production type machine, and large African game stuff- modified Hornady hand /progressive presses or the hated “Blue” Dillon hand operated progressive presses) were/are being used were of early WWII-Late WWI vintage - with modern day production alterations/updates done to them. Most ran remarkably well, but the complaint was that they still fell out of adjustment too often.
Back to the steel cased practice ammo...
Earlier I mentioned that the steel cases seemed to be under crimped at first. I personally helped re-crimp by hand, on a small "O" or "C" press, some 5000 steel cased training .223 rounds. After helping do this I asked if this was a common occurrence. The answer was yes. I asked if the training ammo had any specifications regarding bullet push and pull. The answer was "as long as it is crimped hard enough to keep the bullet in position" – this was worrisome to me. I even mentioned outright that steel stretches/crimps and has different elastic properties as compared to brass that seems similarly “Soft” or ductile. The chilling responding comment was – “it is just training stuff anyway, no big deal.”… - Ah yeah ok………
In the case of loading / high end re-loading there are Bullet “Push” / “Pull” specifications that manufacturers use (How much pressure, in pounds it takes to push the projectile from where it is crimped into the case mouth down into the case body itself), and Bullet pull which is the same except opposite. All military ammunition has specific push/pull requirements as part of their caliber/use specific TDP. Most if not all ammunition manufactures that care about quality, accuracy and consistency have ideal/target push/pull values established for their products – especially those that are intended for, or are likely to cycle through various types of self loading actions. Even some dangerous game loads have these specs due to their heavy recoil (to avoid “Bullet set back”).
Now let’s take into account the manufacturing consistency of the steel cases themselves. Now going from memory before Hornady had them change it, the cases were marked PPU on the bottom. The lacquer coated cases were and are manufactured overseas and shipped in to Hornady already primed. They are brought in by the “Barrel” (Large cardboard drum like containers similar to those that commercial/industrial powdered detergents come in) and stored at an off-site warehouse prior to their loading.
Taking into account the level of pay and incentive given to eastern bloc countries laborers to do their individual jobs well, and to maintain whatever their level of “Quality Control” that may or may not exist I can confidently say that there most likely exists a vastly higher level of inconsistencies in their finished products than compared to identical things produced here. In this case most likely varying thicknesses of the case walls of the cartridges, as somebody else mentioned undrilled flash holes in primer pockets, inadequately deep or completely uncut extractor grooves, inadequate / botched tempering of the work hardened casings , inconsistent thickness of the lacquer coating on said cases – etc. For all intents and purposes these specific steel casings "Could" be their seconds (I am not saying they are but who really knows without eyes on site.)
Honestly these are throw away items and are cheap and inexpensive for a reason – not only due to the material investment cost but workmanship and quality control.
Keeping workmanship in mind as both produced and seen by myself , the projectiles used in these practice cartridges are not of first quality. They are bullets culled from regular batch production runs that have disfigurements, inconsistent weights, improper materials used in their construction, improper lengths, accuracy issues, a combination of all of the above, etc, etc.
Now (I know it has been a long read) my professional assertion / belief is this: Once the press operator finds their machine has “Once again” fallen out of adjustment and the projectiles are not seated and crimped into place tight enough, that the operator adjusts the crimp die down too far and crimps the ever living piss out of the steel case neck, or does the same when hand crimping the unsatisfactory seated and crimped lot of cartridges that QC caught post machine assembly. Now it is basic science that the tighter you crimp the case neck the more pressure it takes to dislodge the projectile to release the pressure, in essence everything is staying bottled up longer before the crimp releases. This alone may be adequate enough to cause a “Kaboom”. But – add to it the higher possibility of a poorly manufactured case being thrown into the mix and things get more and more dangerous.
As was mentioned before, the reason that this training ammo is such a "Bargain" that it is made from imported steel cases and topped with second quality projectiles. At last I was informed there was markedly less hard specifications set for the actual production of these training rounds. Most (If not all) here understand "The Chart" in regards to quality, I would hold these "Bargain" training rounds as suspect as an "imported Oly carbine"..
---> APB
After reading that, I'm glad I reload my own...At least I have control over the Q.C. And, I know exactly what went into them...
wedgehead30
11-27-10, 19:16
Here's a thread from '07 that includes a post from someone saying that there were three KB's using Hornady training ammo during SRT training at the Ohio Highway Patrol academy. I couldn't find any verification on it, but it does stand out that it's at the same place one of your officers witnessed one.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=8343
Wedgehead, do you know if the SRT training is done with rifles owned by the academy, or does an officer take his issued/personal rifle?
I don't know about the 2007 incidents. My officer personally witnessed the incident earlier this year.
As for training rifles. The attending officer is required to bring his own weapons. As to issued or personally owned that is an individual departmental policy. We have both at our PD.
I will try to get more info......
Scott
I don't know about the 2007 incidents. My officer personally witnessed the incident earlier this year.
As for training rifles. The attending officer is required to bring his own weapons. As to issued or personally owned that is an individual departmental policy. We have both at our PD.
I will try to get more info......
Scott
Thanks. I was thinking that if they were academy provided weapons there could be a common denominator. Maybe tight, dirty chambers causing a firing out of battery.
After reading apb's post as well, I'm a little unsure about buying more of this ammo after I shoot what I already have.
Just got a heads-up from an out of state PD.
"OUR DEPARTMENT HAS EXPERIENCED AMMUNITION FAILURE. THE AMMO IN QUESTION IS HORNADY 223 55GR TRAINING FMJ LOT#3070091. THE ROUNDS EXPLODED IN THE CHAMBER CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE RIFLES. THERE WERE NO INJURIES TO THE OFFICERS. THE WEAPONS WERE FIRED AND THE MAGAZINES EXPLODED AND FELL OUT OF THE WEAPONS. BOTH EXTRACTORS AND BOLT RELEASES WERE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED AND THE SHELL IS LODGED IN THE CHAMBERS. THE AR RIFLES WERE A BUSHMASTER AND A ROCK RIVER. HORNADY HAS BEEN CONTACTED AND ARE AWARE OF THE SITUATION."
This is the second failure involving this ammo in recent months that I'm aware of. One of our officers recently attended SRT training at the Ohio State patrol academy. During the training an officer using the same ammo, lot# unknown, had the same thing happen.
I can't offer any additional information.
Just a FYI for what it's worth.
Stay safe,
Scott
Wow. We literally just read about this in an officer safety email this morning in roll call. :eek: I also just attributed it to a shrubmaster or rock pond problem.
Thanks for the warning and thanks for the ex-employee for posting his experience there and letting us all what's the scoop behind the steel cased stuff.
Obviously I'll be avoiding it....
infidelprodigy
11-28-10, 21:36
APB,
We appreciate your first hand information regarding this ammunition. Your post should be made into a sticky for when anyone is curious why shooting steel-cased ammo in an AR is less than optimal. An AR is not an AK, and I believe that the tighter tolerances inherent to the AR system, straight-walled cases, and the variances found in steel-cased ammo make them a bad combination.
I only keep a box of Tula ammo around to ensure my builds will function with even the worse underpowered ammo.
With this info, I will stay away from the Hornady training ammo.
arizona98tj
11-29-10, 19:04
I only keep a box of Tula ammo around to ensure my builds will function with even the worse underpowered ammo.
While I am not a fan boy for .223 Remington Tula ammo, your comment leaves me wondering as to how underpowered it is.
I've shot some in the past. Over my chronograph and from my 16" M&P15, the 55 gr FMJ loads average 2951 FPS, measured at ~10' off the muzzle.
In contrast to that, I believe SAAMI calls for .223 Remington using a 55 gr bullet, measured at 15' from a 24" barrel, to clock in at 3215 FPS, +/- 90 FPS. If we take the common rule of thumb velocity drop of 30 FPS per 1" barrel length, that drops it to 2975 FPS without factoring in any of the +/- 90 FPS off of the original spec.
That puts Tula within spitting distance of the SAAMI spec unless I flipped my numbers by mistake. I've found the POA vs. POI for Tula to be in line with most any other .223 Rem 55 gr FMJ ammo I've ran through my S&W.
It is dirty to shoot, and SD isn't anything to write home about, but I've not found it to be underpowered....at least not the couple of cases that I've used.
Edit: I checked my spreadsheets for a couple of other loads to see how they compared to the Tula. From the same carbine and using the same chronograph, PMC 55 gr FMJ came in at 2834 FPS, Federal bulk pack 55 gr FMJ @ 2977 FPS, and Hornady 55 gr FMJ @ 2959 FPS.
infidelprodigy
11-29-10, 19:32
While I am not a fan boy for .223 Remington Tula ammo, your comment leaves me wondering as to how underpowered it is.
I've shot some in the past. Over my chronograph and from my 16" M&P15, the 55 gr FMJ loads average 2951 FPS, measured at ~10' off the muzzle.
In contrast to that, I believe SAAMI calls for .223 Remington using a 55 gr bullet, measured at 15' from a 24" barrel, to clock in at 3215 FPS, +/- 90 FPS. If we take the common rule of thumb velocity drop of 30 FPS per 1" barrel length, that drops it to 2975 FPS without factoring in any of the +/- 90 FPS off of the original spec.
That puts Tula within spitting distance of the SAAMI spec unless I flipped my numbers by mistake. I've found the POA vs. POI for Tula to be in line with most any other .223 Rem 55 gr FMJ ammo I've ran through my S&W.
It is dirty to shoot, and SD isn't anything to write home about, but I've not found it to be underpowered....at least not the couple of cases that I've used.
Sorry, I used the Tula name as a reference to mostly russian steel cased ammo which is even weaker then loadings like PMC Bronze 223. I think that if my rifle will cycle that crap and lock back on the last round, then any domestic ammo I find should no be a problem.
While I haven't cronoed it, I have witnessed it short-stroke many an AR, including 14.5 mids, and a couple of SR-15's, hence why I use it as a barometer of sorts on builds.
While I haven't cronoed it, I have witnessed it short-stroke many an AR
Could it be that the short stroking is being caused by much of the carriers energy trying to extract the steel casing, and so when the casing breaks free, there isn't much kinetic energy left for the bolt carrier group to cycle?
Your post should be made into a sticky for when anyone is curious why shooting steel-cased ammo in an AR is less than optimal. An AR is not an AK, and I believe that the tighter tolerances inherent to the AR system, straight-walled cases, and the variances found in steel-cased ammo make them a bad combination.
You would think that if a steel casing had integrity issues, it would be better used in an AR15 due to the tighter chamber dimensions rather than in the noticeably looser AK chamber, which would allow the casing to rupture.
Great I've got 1k rounds of Hornady TAP practice 75gr. Now I'm wondering if it's even safe to run in an AK. There have been no complaints about the 75gr that I know of.
Belmont31R
11-29-10, 20:24
Great I've got 1k rounds of Hornady TAP practice 75gr. Now I'm wondering if it's even safe to run in an AK. There have been no complaints about the 75gr that I know of.
Ive fired thousands of it without issue, and have 2k more sitting on my shelf.
Every year there seems to be a "avoid this ammo like the plague" feast that pops up because of a couple incidents. Maybe last year or earlier this year it was Fed XM193 that was supposedly blowing guns up.
Im not going to hesitate to using mine especially since this is a single report with an unknown cause at this point. Lots of things besides ammo can cause a kaboom.
I will say with the way ammo prices have trended it doesn't make all that much sense to keep buying the steel case ammo. Brass case is getting to within $20-50 a case compared to Hornady steel case. Before, when I bought most of it, the price difference was closer to $60-80 per case.
arizona98tj
11-29-10, 20:47
Sorry, I used the Tula name as a reference to mostly russian steel cased ammo which is even weaker then loadings like PMC Bronze 223. I think that if my rifle will cycle that crap and lock back on the last round, then any domestic ammo I find should no be a problem.
While I haven't cronoed it, I have witnessed it short-stroke many an AR, including 14.5 mids, and a couple of SR-15's, hence why I use it as a barometer of sorts on builds.
Sorry for the delayed Edit: on my previous post....I was in the middle of updating it when I got a call from Hawaii and got tied up for a while.
If you check the additional info I added to my previous post, you will find that Tula is by no means weak and is on par as far as velocity is concerned, with the other 55 gr loadings I listed. While I didn't post it, Wolf clocked 2977 FPS using the same hardware as above. And I belive the PMC was the slowest.
I believe kai may have a better explanation to your short stroking problem.....the numbers show that neither of the two most common Russian import ammo used is not under powdered.
And to keep this on subject....I have 600 rounds of Hornady Training (it is not TAP) 55 gr FMJ ammo going with me to a 4 day carbine course later this week. I shot 400 rounds over the past couple of months, mixed in with a bunch of Tula. FWIW, the lot numbers of mine are quite different than those posted by the OP.
wedgehead30
11-30-10, 16:59
I was just reminded of another recent steel case warning we received. It was in the Tactical Defence Institute news letter earlier this year. They did not reveal the ammo manufacturer. We tried to find out what brand of ammo it was but never heard back.
For what it's worth.
Scott
"A M16 Explodes On The Range -- Greg Ellifritz
Last week I was conducting a rifle training class for my officers. I was supervising the firing of our government surplus M-16 rifles at the 25 yard line. I had 5 officers on line firing the drill, 10 rounds in 10seconds from the standing position.
Midway through the firing string I heard a loud explosion and saw one of my officers staggering off of the line, bleeding from his face. I called for cease fire and went over to check him out.
After a couple of seconds I determined that he was not badly injured and that his rifle had blown up. He told me that he was firing and had a malfunction. He pulled the trigger and nothing happened. He immediately executed a tap rack malfunction clearing drill. He said he saw an empty case being ejected from the rifle and thought that his rifle had failed to extract. The new cartridge went into the chamber and he pulled the trigger again. That's when the gun blew up.
The officer said that it felt like he was punched hard in the face. He had a small cut from flying shrapnel on the bridge of his nose. He was
very glad he was wearing safety glasses.
The rifle was locked up tight. It was a government surplus M-16 A1. The charging handle would not move. The magazine was blown out of the rifle and all the rounds were scattered on the ground. Some of the live rounds were seriously dented and damaged. There was a long crack on the top of the upper receiver, running underneath the carry handle for it's entire length. I could see the underside of the bolt carrier was peeled back like a banana.
The bolt was closed, so I was able to separate the upper and lower receivers. I soaked the upper in penetrating oil and was finally able to open the action by beating on it with a 6lb sledgehammer, nothing else would work!
When I took it apart, the bottom of the bolt carrier was fractured, the upper receiver was bowed, with the dust cover bent into a gentle u-shape. The extractor was bent, but remained pinned into the bolt. There was a blown up empty case welded into the chamber. The case-head ruptured on its upper right side. The barrel was clear of any obstructions. The lower was undamaged.
What happened???
I think the malfunction that the officer experienced was actually a squib load.
The cartridge probably had no gunpowder. The primer likely fired but the officer didn't hear it because of the other firing on the line. The power of the primer drove the bullet just inside the barrel, where it got stuck. When the next bullet was fired behind it, all the gas was directed backwards into the upper receiver. It went down (blowing out the magazine) and up (cracking the receiver). The pressure also blew both bullets out of the barrel.
The ammunition we were using was [Withheld by Webmaster] steel case 55grain full metal jacket practice cartridges. We've fired more than 100,000 rounds of this ammo without any previous incident.
I called [Withheld by Webmaster] and spoke with one of their technicians. He agreed with my assessment and is in the process of replacing our upper receiver free of charge. Out of curiosity I also asked him about the possibility of an overloaded case. I did not know it, but he told me that with the powder they use in that round, they couldn't stuff enough in the case to cause it to blow up."
Belmont31R
11-30-10, 17:06
Steel case has nothing to do with a squib load.
Steel case has nothing to do with a squib load.
Exactly, it's a QC issue. But you know how people are.
doctor: you have cancer.
patient: how did this happen!?
doctor: steel cased cartridges.
repairman: Ma'am what's happening with the stove?
lady: well, it's not working. The coil won't get hot at all. What could cause that?
repairman: most likely steel cased cartridges.
policeman: good evening sir, you know why I pulled you over?
driver: umm, no I don't really....
policeman: steel cased cartridges.
wedgehead30
11-30-10, 17:55
Steel case has nothing to do with a squib load.
You're right I guess I should have worded it better. What I was getting at was the original ammo mentioned was Hornady steel cased 55 grain fmj. In the last post it was also steel cased 55grain fmj ammo. Even though they won't reveal the manufacturer I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same.
As I said, for what it's worth,
Scott
Steel case has nothing to do with a squib load.
But it very easily could have something to do with insufficient neck tension which would allow the preceding shot to to enter the bore, but without enough start pressure, the powder could fizzle out and not burn completely. At this point you have a stuck bullet in the bore and a new cartridge lined up right behind which is a recipe for the perfect storm.
Pure conjecture, but it could explain what happened.
I always wonder how ballisticians sort this stuff out in the end. You can send all that remains back to Hrnady for anlaysis, but how they come to a definitive, accurate conclusion is is a mystery to me.
wedgehead30
11-30-10, 21:02
This is the second failure involving this ammo in recent months that I'm aware of. One of our officers recently attended SRT training at the Ohio State patrol academy. During the training an officer using the same ammo, lot# unknown, had the same thing happen.
My Officer tells me that the gun in question at OSP was a personally owned DPMS AR. The officer was shooting Hornady steel cased 55 grain FMJ. There was a squib round, unknown to the shooter, followed by a live round. My Officer was ten shooters down the line and he said the report was very distinct. They didn't have to call a cease fire because everybody stopped when they heard it. The magazine base, spring, follower and remaining rounds blew out of the gun. The magazine body remained in the gun. The bolt was broken in several pieces and the charging handle could not be removed from the upper. The barrel clearly showed that there was an obstruction. The lower appeared to be okay.
FYI,
Scott
infidelprodigy
11-30-10, 22:50
I think there is soem technical differences between a straight case like the 5.56 and a tapered case like a 7.62x39 when it comes to steel cases in the guns. It might also be something to do with the different construction of the rifles themselves.
Not a scientist, just know what I see when triggers get pressed.:cool:
Lots of good info getting passed around this thread.
This is an interesting thread. I'm a relatively new AR user and I posted a few weeks back about my BCG getting stuck during a day on the range. I'd been using Hornady's 55gr FMJ steel case ammo. Wasn't sure, and still can't say for certain what caused the problem.
From my earlier posts on the issue I had:
Range trip today, similar problem:
Total round count of the rifle is approximately 980-995 rounds (last 500 or so being either the 5.56 TAP or the 55gr training ammo also by Hornady)
This is a regular BCM 16" midlength upper with a gunfighter charging handle and an LMT BCG, all of which was new when I put the upper together if that helps
First magazine of the day, before the malfunction, I fired 9-10 rounds of the Hornady steel cased 55gr training ammo.
The actual malfunction: Was firing on a target, I pulled the trigger, nothing, Tried to tap rack, couldn't operate the charging handle. Took the rifle back to the bench, opened up the rifle to find both the carrier and charging handle are stuck forward, I can get maybe a couple millimeters of rearward movement by pulling the handle.
In addition, looking with a flashlight, the problem is the lugs aren't lined up for me to tap the BCG back like the original poster was able to do, if I try to tap the BCG back, the bolt would be stopped by the lugs catching on the barrel extension.
Not sure if there is a live round in the chamber or not.
Any advice?
Thanks in advance.
Round was live. Wanted to check and make sure I couldn't do anything else before mortaring it. Rigged up a pull system with paracord around both sides of charging handle, put upper in vice, stood around corner just in case and pulled everything free with a fairly strong steady pressure. It scared the hell out of me because the primer went off. Not sure what caused that. Sadly, bolt carrier came out and I didn't stop it as well as I would have liked, put a ding in the carrier key so I'll have to replace that (No longer mates with gas tube correctly). Looking at the round, I can't really tell why it got stuck. The case head is a bit torn up where the extractor was, but I don't see how that would keep the bolt from turning? I will take pictures later, maybe someone else can give me an idea as to what caused this?
Thank you.
In addition, the primer fell out of the round, managed to lose it somewhere in my basement. So I wonder if it being loose like that is a sign of what happened?
Also, should I call Hornady about this?
links to pictures of round, carrier key:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v464/IrishJayBird288/AR%20malfunction%20album/carrierkeyding.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v464/IrishJayBird288/AR%20malfunction%20album/lostprimerpic1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v464/IrishJayBird288/AR%20malfunction%20album/problemround1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v464/IrishJayBird288/AR%20malfunction%20album/problemround2.jpg
Sorry for the bad pic quality. Hopefully that sheds some additional light on things.
Ive fired thousands of it without issue, and have 2k more sitting on my shelf.
Every year there seems to be a "avoid this ammo like the plague" feast that pops up because of a couple incidents. Maybe last year or earlier this year it was Fed XM193 that was supposedly blowing guns up.
Im not going to hesitate to using mine especially since this is a single report with an unknown cause at this point. Lots of things besides ammo can cause a kaboom.
I will say with the way ammo prices have trended it doesn't make all that much sense to keep buying the steel case ammo. Brass case is getting to within $20-50 a case compared to Hornady steel case. Before, when I bought most of it, the price difference was closer to $60-80 per case.
Tagging to follow this. My experience with this ammo is exactly the same as Belmonts here. Fired thousands of rounds - it is my staple 3 gun ammo. Much more accurate than Brown Bear (which has exactly the same primed case, the Barnaul plant being where Hornaday gets those cases from). Also more accurate than most run of the mill brass too. Only problems I have experienced have been the occasional dud primer failing to ignite.
I will be interested to try some of this stuff when it becomes widely available:
http://www.hornady.com/store/Steel-Match-new
By the look of it, it uses the polymer coated cases produced by the Tula factory.
I think there is soem technical differences between a straight case like the 5.56 and a tapered case like a 7.62x39 when it comes to steel cases in the guns. It might also be something to do with the different construction of the rifles themselves.
While the taper of the cartridge does matter, the chamber tolerances are even more important. I'm pretty sure russian/warsaw pact AK barrels have wider chambers than western counter parts.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.