Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire model 70 explosion

Some good (and knowledgeable) lawyers would take a case like on a contingency and advance the costs of testing. So not out of pocket money for the client.

Also, the evidentiary standard in this type of case is "preponderance of the evidence", i.e. that the accident was "more likely than not" caused by the defendant e.g.; the ammo maker, rifle manufacturer, etc.

Been there- I was extremely lucky----

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...1721182/blew-up-my-model-70#Post11721182

Another good reason to handload.

Not at all out of the realm of possibility. But most, if not all. shops will not take purchased ammo back. Maybe an exception was made.

Yes it might work out if the ammo was at fault. Otherwise...

Didn't take it back.. bullet replaced by removing one from a new box on the shelf and switching bullets on the sly.

Jesus... your story and TheKid's story scare the chit out of me. Makes me think twice about my backcountry elk hunts all by my lonesome.

I won't guess on the why, but pre-64s were chambered for 264WM. In those days the 264WM was overbore and a bit of a problem so rebarreling to a much less troublesome 7mm RM wasn't unheard of..

You might be surprised at what a good expert in failure analysis can tell from the pieces. Fracture surfaces, for example, can very quickly tell you whether there was a pre-existing crack, or whether the material was brittle, for example, as well as telling you where the failure started and the direction of propagation.

You can't really tell too much from the photos, but it strikes me that barrel obstruction is unlikely, given what appears to be no damage to the barrel. It would be worth checking though, and if very close to the chamber (in the reinforce) you could see case head failure and damage to the receiver without much external sign on the barrel. You'd almost certainly see evidence inside the barrel though

The receiver ring appears to have lacked ductility, but a really good closeup of the fracture surfaces would tell more, and I do note the plastic deformation of the side rail is not consistent with brittleness - and usually if the receiver ring is brittle the rail will be even more brittle, given the thermodynamics of heat treatment.

Since everyone's throwing a guess in, including some rather odd ones, my first thought is case head failure. This may have been the product of a significant overload, or bad brass, wrong cartridge or even an obstruction near to the chamber. The Model 70's breech design doesn't support the case head, and a case head failure is apt to overstress the receiver ring, as well as seeing the extractor and other parts blown out. Often there are a combination of factors at play too - a case head failure coupled with a receiver perhaps lacking toughness, for example (as was often the case with those low-number Springfields Hatcher wrote about).

It would be an interesting case to take on.

Curious who the lawyers would even go after if it wasn't a factory gun anymore. Unless it was hot ammo, not sure who else would be at fault. Seems like Winchester would be off the hook since the firearm was modified with custom barrel.

Did the magazine have a cartridge in it when explosion occurred?

When and if I get any more information, I will post an update. I know that the young man is now reading this thread, and the family thanks everyone who gave their thoughts. I think they will be taking all the pieces and parts to a competent gunsmith and then probably to an attorney here in Montana.

Thanks everyone.

The pictures show that the explosion destroyed where the barrel screwed to the frame. I would have the metal involved tested to see if it is especially weak.

Dog catcher, even if re-barreled, The rifle maker might still be liable for damages if the action is determined to be defectively designed/manufactured.

Exactly, an obstruction will cause the barrel to bulge or burst.
The picture of the rear of the barrel shows half the rim of the case. Looks like catastrophic head failure to me. All the gas centered around the lugs and blew the bridge. Have never seen anything like that in 60 years of using and smithing M70's.
The bolt lugs even held though they are battered. My guess is that round got the wrong powder, turning it into a IED.
My heart goes out to the young man. Life changing. Give him my best wishes.

Pre-64?

It's at a minimum 56 years old.

Defect in design or manufacturing should have been evident long before now.

Very possible. Similar was done to enemy ammo caches in Vietnam. Ask me how I know.

Semper Fi.

good argument. Doesn't mean it won't get to a jury.
Catastrophic failure (without warning) is a defect.

Don't think it would get very far if it could be shown/proved that the rifle was modified or customized .