Don't blame it on the bullets.
<br>
<br>Your loads were already dangerously close to the edge. When you changed one variable (those bullets), the slight difference -- which wouldn't be a great problem if your loads were safely moderate -- was enough to hoist pressures the small amount necessary to expedite the destruction of your rifle.
<br>
<br>I'd need all the details of your load, to be more certain and specific, and I'd really love to run one of your loads through an instrumented test barrel -- but given what you've told me, I'm confident that your loads were already hot enough to have you skirting close to the brink of a blow-up.
"skirting close??" WHAT? No max load or even over PUBLISHED max loads would cause a blow up. And I have Lee data that is over Hornady, or Sierra data max loads... ALL data is within SAMMI specifications.
Should this statement cause some concern?? From Hawk bullets....."They seal the bore and engage the rifling more completely, improving accuracy and eliminating gas blow-by....
So what does this tell us class?? if there's less blow by where's the pressure going?
Really? Come on. OP states........"the cases I used and measured and weighed every single Hawk bullet. All were .358 in diameter and weighed exactly 275 grains." I'm CONFIDENT he loaded correctly if this was under normal circumstances. But you're confident he was skirting close to the brink of a blow up??? And this is the most humorous statement here..."was enough to hoist pressures the small amount necessary to expedite the destruction of your rifle."Ummmmm.... moderating the pressure signs, which again I'm sure he has done in the past..On another note.. "loads were being dangerously close to the edge"???would show indications waaaaaay BEFORE a rifle barrel/action being blown up... um, like, case failure. Folks can say what they want about Ken Howell so far as his faith and his irascibility, but the man knew more about internal and external ballistics than you will ever hope to know. Studying under the tutelage of Homer Powley and his peers gave Ken Howell a leg up in a very complicated area.
He had his own gunpowder pressure testing equipment for checking individual lots of powder, and enough other test equipment to put a lot of ballistics labs to shame, including computers and software.
You come across as a very defensive, immature person who has a little bit of knowledge and no idea of the capabilities of the people on this site.
You would be much better served to ask questions and listen, not pontificate on things you only have a glimmer of knowledge about.
Ed
