Does any one know what powder Weatherby uses in their .30-378 180gr Barnes X loads? They shoot good in my rifle and although I have not crono'd them, Weatherby advertises 3450 fps. None of my reloading books ie: Nosler #5 and Barnes #2 shows these velocities. Thanks.

Weatherby's ammo is loaded for them by Norma, and I would assume that they use a non-canister grade powder. Chances are that it is loaded pretty hot and even then the "advertised" velocity sometimes isn't reality.

You may be able to come close to duplicating the load using Norma MRP-2 powder, which is most likely the closest canister grade powder available. Data can be found here.

Norma powders are available through Grafs.

CAS gets the cigar. Norma does indeed load the brand of ammo in question on contract (or did, as of just a few years ago) -- and it's very hot. Read my three accounts and draw your own conclusion: are these three accounts related?



� Several years ago, I got a call from a fellow who wanted to know where to send the remains of his friend's rifle for forensic analysis. His friend was a hunter but not a handloader. He used only the brand of factory ammo in question in his rifle (same brand). Not long before the other fellow called me, the hunter had been out (prone) sighting-in his rifle to be ready for hunting season. The bolt had come out of the receiver and entered the shooter's face just below his eye -- it stopped in his lower neck.



� Later, I got a couple of calls from an American friend who was visiting Norma on business. In both calls, he told me that (a) the Norma guys liked my idea of loading a larger cartridge to lower pressures to get the desired velocities without unduly straining the rifle, and (b) that they were unhappy and uneasy with having to load to the pressures established by their contract with the company whose ammo we're discussing.



� A bit later still, I got a couple of calls from a friend in the US ammo industry whose lab job included pressure-testing all the factory ammo available in the US. In the first of these two calls, he mentioned his uneasiness with the tests of the brand of ammo in question and said he'd be especially happy to be done with that span of tests. In the next call, he expressed relief at having finished testing that brand of ammo.

"What was the problem?" I asked. "Bad recoil?"

"No," he said. "Very high pressures."

"What was the highest?"

"Seventy-five thousand [lb/sq in.]."

"Well, what was the lowest?"

"Seventy-four thousand."



In this country, SAAMI's highest maximum pressures are around 65,000 lb/sq in., and even those get pretty hot at times. I don't know how in the world any handloader could expect to match either the advertised performance or the de facto field performance of the ammo we're discussing at anything even remotely like safe maximum pressures.

Wow! That had to hurt <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Why, in this day of litigious society, would any company load ammo so hot?

Amazing....

Dr Howell
I've tried for years to duplicate Wby ammo and I cannot do it ! Seems when I get the velocity close , the pressure is off the scale . I plan to do some pressure testing of my own with Wby ammo soon, I'll post the results.
Charlie

Westman

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bolt had come out of the receiver and entered the shooter's face just below his eye -- it stopped in his lower neck.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wow! That had to hurt

Why, in this day of litigious society, would any company load ammo so hot?... Welcome to the wonderful world of RUM, SAUM, WSM, and WSSM...

Amazing....
Charlie

Mothertrucker...Did you have any presure signs, and I know you know what to look for, if not then don't worry......Do you have a speed-o-meter? If not the next time you're down find out what the velocities are...plenty of people you know have them...

Who is this? Do I know you????

Not really, but there's only so many people that would name theirselfs trucker in a public forum <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

I'll let you stew on it for a few days, then tell you...

The only two Wby calibres that I have chronographed a few times over a few years have been the 300 Wby 180 grain and 378 with 270 grain.

The 300 has been around the 3150 to 3170 mark and the 378 has been around the 3060 to 3080 mark. In both cases top loads with Re 22 have been about 100 f/s above these figures.

It would be about 5 years since I last chronographed such factory ammo.

Mike

Ken Howell's comments pose an interesting question. All of the flack alot of people gave Chuck Hawks on his commentary comparing the 243 WSSM to the 240 Weatherby magnum are ringing true to me. The key point Chuck was making, and I remember so many wanting to bash him, was that Winchester was comparing apples to oranges to mis-lead you into believing the 243WSSM was more powerful (read , had more velosity), than the 240 wby mag. Chuck's point was that Winchester choose to compare Olin's (Winchester ammo) 243 WSSM factory loads to reload book data on the 240 Weatherby. As Ken Howell stated, Weatherby factory ammo, which is made by Norma, is already "hot", and frankly, Chuck's argument of Calling BS on Winchester I believe hit the nail rigft on the head. I also remember a bunch of people bashing Chuck when he came down on the feed mechanism for the WSSM mags. It does seem now, that he was onto something as is demonstrated by some of the problems we now hear Browning and Winchester are having with feeding mechanisms. Just some food for thought. The short mags I believe are clearly hear to stay, but let's make sure they are promoted for what they are, not what they arent. An example is the 25WSSM, I looked at the data recently, and it looks like a glorified 257 Roberts, but is being touted as equal to the 25-06. Well Winchester...........prove it, because so far, I dont buy your BS.

I have a problem with the facts presented so far that suggest
Weatherby factory ammo is unsafe.

A bolt being blown through a guy's head is certainly an eye catching
anecdote but I would like to know a lot more about the rifle
itself -- a Weatherby or a knock-off or custom job with no freebore;
its condition -- plugged barrel, head space problems?; and
what the post mortem on the rifle and the incident concluded.

The high pressures alluded to would break down any rifle in fairly
quick time if they were not designed to cope. Is the Weatherby
"free-bore" the reason why they don't? We are talking over sixty years
of market exposure here.

Not only would Weatherby and Norma be at risk of cripppling law suits
but what about the otehr major rifle makers who now chamber
Weatherby cartridges in their rifles? Even Ruger, among the
most lawyer-ridden in the industry, makes its rifles in
several WBY cartridges.

I have no dog in this fight as I own only a .257 WBY and am
not in the "bidness". But my BS sniffer is twitching overtime
on this one.

1B
-

IMO, anybody who can't acknowledge that lab-tested pressures of 74,000 to 75,000 lb/sq in. are unsafe in any rifle is foolish beyond hope or logic.
It was a Weatherby-- Mark V, IIRC -- a veteran of long use with Weatherby factory ammo and no other. No other problem reported to me. (Isn't a bolt blown into one's face enough sign of a problem to suggest that something went badly wrong?)

That's the point. Congratulations for "getting it." But "fairly quick time" is somewhat stretchy, IMO. I know of no rifle that's "designed to cope" with long-term use with ammo loaded to the pressures that these lab-tested rounds were loaded to.

In the Powley-Howell book Inside the Rifle (to be published soon), the senior author points-out that over a broad number of rounds loaded to a specified nominal maximum pressure, the actual pressures form a classic bell-shaped curve. IOW, they range from a few much lower to a few much higher than the nominal maximum pressure, with the vast majority clustered tightly around the nominal maximum pressure.

This would mean that some rounds loaded to a nominal maximum of 75,000 lb/sq in. could develop pressures much closer to 100,000 lb/sq in. and possibly even higher. This is one reason that the SAAMI companies' ammo is supposed to be factory-loaded to SAAMI's official maximums of 60,000 to 65,000 lb/sq in. for rifles that have withstood proof-test firings at pressures substantially higher than 60,000-65,000 lb/sq in.

... and you assume no other trouble?

I'd call that very much having a dog in this fight.

What's that on your upper lip? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> (Couldn't resist such an obvious and inviting opening!)

Exactly whom do you suspect of conscious misrepresentation here? Your suspicion strongly suggests to me that you're so ready to misrepresent clear facts (to best fit your preferred opinons and to best suit your own purposes) that you readily assume that others are equally prone to misrepresent clear facts when they present clear facts that you don't like. That's what the world at large, through the ages, has found to be generally true of those who stand ever ready to suspect others of misrepresentation.

Ken--You are corect on this issue.When one rifle company marketing it's ammo, but is hiring someone else to load it real
hot, you have a recipe for problems.And with repeated firings
on a multilug bolt, all small lugs, that is very hard to get to bear on all those
lugs and seats, with hot loads, fatigue can occur.Said rifle company had to misrepresent there loads to SAAMI if they belonged.The SAAMI specs are designed to allow for the occasional load that goes to pressure above the curve .IE
act like a blue pill high test round.I have studied internal ballistics like Ken and Homer
and there is no good reason for anyone to operate this way.
Lately it seems folks chronoing their loads have noticed
a reduction in velocity..Ed.

Ken, maybe I am not reading all of this correct, but isnt it true that the short mags factory loads would be very difficult for a reloader to exceed factory velocity, due to the fact that Winchester, Browning ,Olin, etc all know that the rifles out there now in the market are all new. So, over time, would we expect the factory ammo for the short mags to get loaded alittle softer, or am I reading this wrong? Also, I would assume at that point a handloader would perhaps have the upper hand in developing higher velocity rounds? Or am I out to lunch.....

Dr. Howell,

I also heard a story similar to the one you related. Except I heard that the guy survived, and received a huge settlement.

From details I was told, I am not sure that it was worth any amount of money he received.

Tony.

When asked, I referred the injured shooter's lawyer to the H P White Laboratory for forensic examination and analysis and did not examine the subject rifle myself. With several others, nevertheless, I've given the matter a lot of thought from what little I was told of the incident and what good bit we've all long known about the locking lugs in bolt actions -- and all the other experts have seconded my tentative explanation as "most logical" to "the only explanation that makes any sense at all."

We've known for a long time that
(a) with even a two-lug bolt, only one locking lug usually takes the brunt of the back-thrust, if not all of it -- at least at first, until repeated firings seat the second lug, and
(b) that the more locking lugs there are on the bolt, the more of them that are just hanging there, disengaged, until repeated firing seats one or more of the others.

So our (my) theory was (is) that one by one under repeated firings with ultra-high-pressure ammo, all those nine tiny locking lugs set back -- only one or maybe two taking the load at any one time -- until the last one (just like all the other eight before it) finally cracked -- and none was left strong enough to take the pressure of that one "last straw" and let that last round propel the bolt out of the receiver and into the shooter's face and neck. But of course without examining the remains of the rifle, none of us could confirm or correct this educated conjecture. I'd be surprised -- however -- if this were to prove wrong in any detail.

Sure wish I'd been engaged to examine that rifle -- and not just for the "expert witness" fee and expenses!

Probably the same fellow. The friend who called me, soon after the incident, told me that the shooter's 13-year-old grandson had been able to get him into the car and drive it to where the shooter could be air-lifted to a Salt Lake City hospital, where the doctors kept him from dying. (The incident occurred somewhere near our old county seat of Tooele, Utah.)

I would expect him to receive a huge settlement -- from one of the gun accidents that I would consider the manufacturer and not the shooter probably culpable for. (I've testified in both kinds of cases -- some where the manufacturer was obviously at fault and others where the handloader was to blame for the problem. Both kinds occur all too frequently.)

I know my Ruger M77 tang safety model my gunsmith left the same amount of freebore in it as a standard 240 weatherby so the rifle could shoot factory ammunition. When I broke the barrel in, I used 4 boxes of older Weatherby ammo I purchased , and then I shot 1 box of new factory 100 grain partitions in it. Now I am reloading it, and have a 100 grain partition load worked up, a 90 grain XFB, and the 95 grain TSX. I'm not going to put in print what I am currently thinking, only maybe to comment that I am glad I am now shooting my handloads. We might forget the apples and oranges argument also, or do you guys allow retractions?

Ken--There was another similiar incident in Scandinavia
also, that I have heard about ..Over on AR it was discussed
last spring..Ed.

Ken I realize you don`t have any hope of hearing of all the accidents involving firearms but, saying it happens "too frequently" can you give an idea of the amount of handloads that cause gun failure or injury yearly? This is something I have never read about in the press, or heard discussed anywhere, although I`ve alway knew it existed.
What seems to be the cause? Are the magnum boys looking to go faster, or varmint hunters trying for flatter loads? Maybe it`s just pure carelessness?

Once is too often to suit me, of course, but just about everybody I know who's shot a lot knows of occurrences that don't get reported except by word of mouth, shooter to shooter. I'd guess that a very small percentage gets reported in any official way, and even fewer go into litigation. I have yet to see any case that I've worked on reported by any news outlet. So I can not begin to guess how many cases occur in a typical year. Hundreds for sure, possibly thousands.

The major causes, IMO, are two --

� The universal obsession with the highest possible velocities and the concomitant obsession for ignoring (a) the dangers that forever lurk behind high pressures and (b) the fact that only slight differences in down-range performance go along with substantial differences in maximum peak pressures. (Often, only fractions of an inch of drop and only a few ft/sec of velocity separate moderate-pressure and high-pressure loads at a hundred yards and sometimes farther.)

� The mysterious reluctance to admit that you've blown-up a gun or that one of your guns has blown-up in use by another shooter. I suspect that some of the settled cases involve gag orders preventing successful plaintiffs from making the facts known beyond the usual readership of the pertinent court documents. And of course, the companies that have to pay big settlements (in or out of court) aren't real eager to see the news widely known.

The odds favor "the house" -- here, the manufacturers. The overwhelming majority of factory guns don't blow-up, and far the most factory rounds don't blow-up any guns. Of those that do, only a very small percentage (IMO) get as far as a jury or a gavel. Meanwhile, the successful sales of a huge-a-honkin' number of guns and rounds provide quite enough of a comfortable cushion to pay-off any number of settlements and successful defenses without endangering the bottom-line net profits.

So the makers and sellers go on making and selling what I think they shouldn't, and handloaders go on loading and shooting what I know they shouldn't. And guns keep letting go, and makers and shooters keep saying that nothing was faulty with their guns, loads, etc.

One problem is that many shooters foolishly and illogically think that to be dangerous, a rifle must be capable of letting go with one round, or a load has to be hot enough to blow-up any rifle with only one round. Out here in the real world, the effects of weakness and excessive pressures tend to be cumulative rather than inevitable and instantaneous with only one round or even a few rounds.

I tend to be a bit like 1B on this topic in that my BS sniffer has gone off. The horn has also blown on my "pending litigation" warner <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The Scandanadian one as I remember it was interesting because all the lugs were gone but the bolt handle was still there looking all nice and new <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

My guess would be that if you fired a Wby Mark 5 and used a bolt that had all the lugs machined off it the bolt would still not come out of the receiver.

Mike

Ken, given your reputation and substantial experience in the shooting industry, have you ever discussed this issue directly with "said" manufacturer?

Is it legal to overload commercial rifle ammunition above SAAMI specs?

Both the A-Square and VihtVouri manuals list Weatherby 300 as a CIP cartridge,not a SAAMI.The list maximum for 300 is 440 MPa(63,800).As a comparision the 308Norma,no shrinking violet itself, is listed at 430 MPa.

Ken--We got to discussing this again over on AR..For info.
The cross section area of the 9 Weatherby lugs are less than the cross section of say a 1917 or P-14 Enfield.Or Ruger 77.
As best as I could measure and figure it out.
About 90 % as much.So to be effective compared to Mauser
styled bolts with any decent two lug contact, the Wea would have to have absolutely all 9 in perfect contact.. Especially if
something went wrong.Or continuous use of really high pressure loads.. Ed.

Super Trucker,
When I load my Weatherby's I find the pressure point where little ejector mark is just starting to appear on the brass and then back off so it doesn't,then check velocity.
If I need more speed I change powders,if I can not get the desired velocity but excellent acuracy This is good enough for me..
With the 30-378 for example I would get 3360-3380 FPS with 180 BT's and a case full ADI 2218 Powder.It would shoot nice little groups and no ejector Marks.

We have read the Theory why the Weatherby rifle in question, above,came apart.
I would be interested in the actual scientific results and inspection of this rifle.
To say it came apart thru repeated firing of high pressure factory loads and this is what caused the failure is one thing ,now it's time to prove it.
So if any of you learned people can access the actual test results on this failure that would be great.


Enjoy your day,

Charlie

Have discussed it on a number of occasions, with a number of manufacturers. In each instance, it was soon obvious that I have no persuasive influence with anybody -- especially not with those already well under way on an established course.

SAMMI's standards have no legal force of any kind with anybody -- not even with SAAMI's member companies, the only ones to whom those standards apply.

Old-timers who still have two brain cells operating close enough to communicate with each other have learned never to say anything like "[Winchester, Colt, etc] never made anything like that" or "I don't care what anybody thinks he's seen, nothing like that could ever happen."

Many of us are old enough and have seen enough to have laid eyes on the guns, cartridges, and old company catalogs that refute the suddenly all-knowing who have pronounced those guns and cartridges "never made."

And I'm not the only one who's seen blow-ups that the know-it-alls love to oh!, so solemnly declare impossible or caused by some aberration other than the one identified.

I'm aways impressed (never mind how!) by the super-powerful mind that can read or hear an account of something totally new to him, "think" about it for maybe a fraction of a second, then light into the long-studied, carefully formed conclusions of good minds much closer to the matter and infinitely more aware of its details (especially those details so carefully considered in forming the conclusion but not discussed in the brief public presentation that Super Brain has so briefly considered).

If Super Brain has never seen what we've seen, how can he rationally contend that (a) it didn't happen or (b) it occurred for some reason other than we've identified?

I bought the remains of a shattered custom Mauser from the friend whose first round blew it into large and teensy-weensy pieces. I know exactly what blew it up, because my friend knew -- and said -- exactly what he did wrong. But I'd like to invite Super Brains of the World to tell me -- right here -- without having my account of the problem to declare "wrong" -- what really reduced that rifle to the rubble I now have.

Sorry -- claiming that it never happened won't fly.

Ed, someday, I'll have to dig-up and send you the figures that I wrote about in (I think) an old issue of Varmint Hunter. I also posted them, some time ago, on this or some other board. Even those figures won't sway the Super Brains, but a quick summary is enough for old-timers like us.

� The rearward thrust at maximum pressure is what the locking lugs have to withstand.

� The rearward thrust is a force -- so many tons -- the product of (a) the peak pressure (lb/sq in.) times (b) the web area (sq in.) inside the case.

� The rearward thrust at any given maximum pressure is therefore greater with an H&H Magnum case than it is with an '06-family case.

� The rearward thrust at any given maximum pressure is therefore greater with a larger-head Weatherby Magnum case than it is with the smaller-head H&H Magnum case.

And of course even Super Brain can see that
� the rearward thrust behind any case is greater with whatever greater maximum pressure the loads in that case may produce.

Combine
(a) frighteningly higher maximum pressures,
(b) substantially larger case-web areas operating as piston heads driven rearward by these pressures,
(c) smaller areas of locking-lug engagement with their bearing areas in the receiver,
and what would you expect to get?
Nothing worse than than .30-06 bolt thrust? Not hardly. The bolt thrust with a big Weatherby Magnum case is much heavier than what you'd expect a Mauser, Springfield, Enfield, Winchester, Remington, or Ruger to withstand repeatedly -- and much, much greater still if the load's maximum pressures are higher than SAAMI's 60,000 lb/sq in.

I have the figures somewhere -- not right at hand, but they're easy enough to calculate for yourself. Recognizing that the web area inside is a tad smaller than the full cross-sectional area of the entire web, I methodologically "eliminated" the area of the case walls by using 90% of the cross-sectional area as the net effective piston area. I think that 90% is probably a bit conservative for the larger case heads.

The best inventions, best products in fact just about the best of everything got that way because of having to face objections, doubts and non believers.

Some of us are waiting to learn and our doubts or questioning should not cause you to have to go off the rails. If Edison was like that we still be using candles.

My experience has been that 300 and 378 Wby factory ammo is about 100 f/s lower than top loads.

I have posed the question on AR asking for views of what would happen if an action that uses a one piece bolt, such as the Wby Mark V, was fired with the lugs having been machine off and with a load that was at the level of causing ejector marks on the case head.

My feeling at the moment is the bolt would still be in the receiver.

Mike

... and you think that with the locking lugs gone, the root of the bolt handle would take further firings indefinitely? Any number of "views of what would happen" would be worth absolutely nothing in the face of one instance of what did happen. And we have at least one good report of what did happen at least once.



The legitimate use of theory now lies in explaining what did happen, not in frantic, futile efforts to fabricate theoretical reasons that "it couldn't have happened."



I got a detailed report that the bolt had exited the receiver and had entered the shooter's face. I saw then and see now no reason to doubt that report. But then I have only an ordinary brain, IQ-tested at only a bit over 150, that I try to use carefully -- not one of the Super Brains that we see so loquaciously exposed here to present nanosecond judgements. Many well known general facts support both the veracity of the report and the tentative explanation offered. Only vain, void, distant skepticism and ignorance support the twitching of a Super Brain's "BS sniffer."



If one relies on facts and well known relationships, BS is obvious from far beyond the reach of its stoutest aroma. IOW, I can see BS from farther away than anybody can smell it. Only imagined BS has only an imagined aroma and no visible image.



I'm not the one who's off the rails here. And the imagined aroma that twitches sniffers is evidence of BS much closer to the sniffers than anything that I've posted.

No, but for one shot, which is all that is required in the example used in the thread.

Now the example I have used is one where the lugs are machined off the bolt before firing. I think for one shot the bolt will remain in the receiver.

As a side note I think a Weatherby bolt weighs about 20 ounces. If we had a 300 Wby and say 180s at 3200 and 85 grains of powder and we had no bolt handle and no lugs then the bolt would reach about 120 f/s. Actually it would be less than that because the head of the case would have blown.

I am not if this is correct but I arrived at about 120 f/s by assuming the bolt is now "the gun" and applied the recoil formula to a gun weighing 20 ounces.

Mike

"skepticism' is vital because it allows the problem to be approached from the other side or from another view.

At the moment I am inclined to think that if the bolt finished up stuck in the shooters face then the reason or reasons are different to those which you have proposed.

I might also had that after having been in the insurance business for 30 years I have seen a few events that turn out to be quite strange in terms of the cause.

Mike

You assume much more than I'd dare assume. On what do you base the premise that the round that put the bolt into the shooter's face and neck was the only round that was fired after the failure of the last failed locking lug? That little idea comes from inside your ol' gourd, not from anything that I've posted. Nor from any logic that I can imagine.

Yes, one shot drove the bolt out of the receiver. But nothing inherent in that fact supports the premise that that one round -- all by itself -- (a) wiped the last lug off, (b) broke the heretofore pristine bolt handle off, and (c) expelled the bolt. I'd assume that an unknown number of preceding rounds had (progressively and without being detected) ruined and removed all resistance to the bolt's rearward travel before that one last round finally made the entire succession of failures obvious.

My clear impression is that you have first doubted the report or the conjectured tentative explanation, then tried to figure-out why it's "BS."

You proposed that the locking lugs were hammering up and setting back etc and then let go.

I don't think that process will have hurt the integral bolt handle.

Again, the question I posed was if all the lugs were machined off the action and a load with pressure that was in the area of causing an ejector mark on the case head was fired......then would the bolt blow back and shear off the bolt handle or tear out the metal behind the bolt.

At this stage I am inclined to think that under those circumstances the bolt would remain in the receiver.

Mike

"If?" Why "if?" Why doubt that it did?

The tentative explanation that I and others have conjectured fits what else we know about (a) bolt-action design and construction, (b) the forces produced by cartridge firings and variously resisted by breech mechanisms, and (c) the maximum pressures produced by widely separated samples of the factory ammo in question. To refute this explanation with even a minimum of rationality or credibility, skepticism must be based on something a good bit more substantial than a suspicious mind or stubborn refusal to accept someone else's explanation as at least logical.

What other, better tentative explanation can you offer without assuming basic premises that you have to provide to make your explanation logical?

Simply because I believe the integral bolt handle will hold for the one shot.



What has been proposed by you is that the lugs (for the reasons you gave) all let go.



Now I believe even with the lugs machined off the action the bolt would hold for one shot.



So far no one is saying that if I fire the rifle with the lugs machined off then the bolt will shear off the integral handle.



Note that I am not raising any argument against all the lugs letting go at once.



In other words "for the sake of the argument" I have said lets machine off the lugs and fire the rifle. I guess that sort of gives us a one lug rear locker.



Mike

Indefinitely? Ad infinitum?

I doubt that you can assume eternal strength for the root of the bolt handle, especially after the locking lugs designed to withstand the rearward thrust have failed and have thus left the bolt handle "holding the bag." Seems more logical to me that the same kind of repeated excessive hammering that peened and cracked the lugs would be even more certain to peen and crack the root of the bolt handle -- probably more easily than it ruined the lugs.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease come-up with something more logical than mere skepticism and stubborn refusal to regard the logic of the explanation offered. If there's a better explanation, I'm far more eager to know and embrace it than I am to persist with the one explanation that now seems logical to me.

You don't appear to have a view on what would happen if the lugs were machined off and the rifle was fired and I assume that is one reason you have moved to the bolt handle being peened.

However, a couple of points to consider.

How far would the lugs need to be set back before the bolt handle starting acting like a lug because if the bolt handle does not act like a lug for each shot then it won't be peened.

Now if the handle was acting as a lug (due to the set back of the bolt lugs) and this peening of the bolt handle started to occur we must surely enter the area of difficulty with bolt opening and especially since the metal behind the behind the bolt handle slants very slightly forward.

Mike

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease come-up with something more logical than mere skepticism and stubborn refusal to regard the logic of the explanation offered. If there's a better explanation, I'm far more eager to know and embrace it than I am to persist with the one explanation that now seems logical to me.



But I don't see your proposal as a logical explanation and one which is based on the combination of high pressure factory ammo and 9 small locking lugs.



In fact your explanation is akin to me saying the loud noise I can now here above the house and which is a bit different to normal is a some sort of UFO. In my case I will go for a jet landing at Sydney air port.



Let us consider a couple of facts.



1) Wby rifles and ammo have been around for a long time. In addition they are used quite a lot in Australia where we



a) Tend to shoot a lot in our summer months and



b) fire lots of shots and typically leave the loaded ammo baking away in the car. We are not hunters we are shooters.



2) The very nature of the Wby calibres encourages high pressure hand loading and doubly so because of the promotion behind the rifle.



3) Most keen reloaders know that if the double base powders such as Reloader are used then Wby factory ammo velocities can be exceeded.



Now in the face of all that these rifles don't appear to be having any problems.



In fact it is more than reasonable to discount your proposed reasons.



Thus our starting point might be a rifle that is not right but "not right" because of the reasons you have proposed.



Mike

Oh, but I do -- and it should be obvious in what I've already posted. And I haven't moved anywhere except to respond to what you're saying here.

� If all the lugs are gone -- or weakened enough to offer no resistance, irrespective of whether unnoticed set-back or intentional removal by grinding or machining has taken them out of the equation -- then the root of the bolt handle would be subject to all the rearward thrust applied to the bolt by the firings of all the cartridges subsequently fired.

� Repeated firings would subject the root of the bolt handle to the same repeated hammering with repeated firings, which I wouldn't expect it to withstand indefinitely. NB: I never said or implied whether the root of the bolt handle would fail with the subsequent firing of only one round. The idea of what only one round would or wouldn't do comes from you, my friend, not from me.

I think I see one of your problems -- that you seem to be basing your objections on the mistaken assumption that my first brief capsule comments comprise the totality of the matter as I see it. No, my friend, I merely reported a few of the most basic points of a much more detailed set of circumstances -- a thoroughly legitimate approach on my part, since the intent was to present just the basic high points as briefly as possible, as they applied to the narrow original context of the thread -- not to present an exhaustive technical analysis of the event and its causes nor to engage in a long, detailed technical discussion of every detail of the event and its causes. You have therefore set forth to refute things neither said nor implied, which you had to assume and supply as premises.

I know how you can answer this question Mike . Take one of your .378 s and grind off the locking lugs .

Proceed to fire with factory loads until something lets go or you get tired of it .

We will then have proof , one way or the other.............when are you going to get started ..........?.............(grin)

But unless the peening of the bolt handle has occurred then it will be one round.

However, for peening of the bolt handle to have occurred other problems are introduced.

So we have three basic things to discuss.

1) If there was no peening of the bolt handle then I think you agree that the bolt handle only had to hold for one shot. I also get the impression that you believe the bolt handle will hold for one shot, assuming it has not been peened.

Now if this is the situation then it is likely that the events reported to you were a case of incaccurate reporting.

2) The bolt handle was peened. This then brings up the issue of being able to operate the rifle and would again suggest that the facts were not reported to you.

3) The rifle in question had some type of fault or faults and the bolt into the shooters face would still have occurred had pressures been a bit lower.

Mike

sdgunslinger,

A couple of weeks ago I was getting through the Australian Wby agent two upgraded 338/378 Accumarks. However it was a pair of 378s that I wanted but the Australian agent said they would be more than 12 months away.

However, the 378s kept eating away at me so I phoned the chap in the Wby custom shop and in our discussion it was obvious that the Australian agent had wrong information. Their computer link to Wby does not contain anything about bits and pieces relating to the custom shop.

So to cut a long story short the order was changed over to a pair of 378s with the good wood and all steel bottom metal. Charlie Murray who posts here and is in the Wby Collectors Assoc looked at the confirmation emails from Wby and has said they should be two real one off rifles.

Now after reading all this stuff of Ken Howells it looks like I am fortunate that I ordered two of them. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Kevin Nunes in Wby (a very helpful and prompt man) has said he expects both rifles to be in the next shipment to Australia which should leave at the end of February and be here in May.

Mike

Ken, this discussion got me to thinking (a dangerous thing) so I went and sectioned three cartridges to get the area of the base internal dimensions.



On a .270 case, the base is .348"dia. Using 65,000psi, the pressure on the bolt would be aprox 6182lbs.



The .300 Weatherby case, the base was .375"dia. At 75,000psi, the bolt pressure would be aprox 8283lbs.



Now comes the interesting finding. A .300 ultra case has a base of .420" BUT the base is in a hemispherical shape. Did some quick and dirty calculations with autocad to get my surface area, came up with .165 sq. in., with my math equates to 10,725lbs at 65,000psi.



From my piont of view, I think what 375 is trying to say is that this guy should have recognized that there was something wrong with this rifle proir to the accident.

You're trying 'way too hard, Mike.

You're 'way out of your element trying to divine what I think or assume.

The fact that a certain event has never happend on Elm Street has nothing whatever to do with whether it has occurred on Main Street. Mrs Mary Higgins was murdered in this house before I bought it -- it happened, with details well known, quite irrespective of the facts (a) that any number of other Mary Higginses have not been murdered and (b) that no one has ever been murdered in millions of other homes. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so you can't know whether no W'by rifle or ammo in your country has ever let go. And even if you're right about that, you have nothing there to argue against either the Utah man's injury or my conjecture regarding the mechanism of its cause.

I won't bother you by recounting the ways that you're wrong. I'm always interested in an intelligent, mutually respectful exchange of views -- but no interest in duels that have one shooter facing north and the other facing east.

Have a good 2004, my friend! If you grind the lugs off a Mark V, fire it with a looooooooooooooong string -- just in case. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Ken,

It is true that Wbys could be falling apart in Australia and no one hears of those problems but I think that is unlikely. Australia is a very tight knit shooting group and very much so with rifles that are not Howas and Ruger Stainless, that is, the big selling rifles out here.

BUT, if you are going to investigate something then you don't start with what is the most unlikely.

Why don't you address the three points in my last posting.

I think any reasonable person would say the most likley solution is the that the reporting to you was either inaccurate or this particular rifle had some fault or faults and those faults were unrelated to Wby ammo or 9 small locking lugs.

The integral bolt handle is the fly in the ointment.

Mike

The rifle may have had faults from the factory and introduced faults from firing--Like say only few of lugs bearing and a fault in the bolt handle or the tang where bolt sets in.And lugs too hard and not resiliant.On constant firing those lugs stressed cracked and as it set back a little, more cracked, and then let loose getting a run at bolt handle stop, which sheared off bolt or the stop.The bolt handle base is smaller than on my Enfields.Those small lugs
may not peen or dimple back, thus picking up more contact and strength from others in the process.I think they crack.
The heat treatment on narrow lugs will leave a smaller core section of high strength, compared to a Mauser style big lug.
If the lugs peened back so far as to have bolt handle become a lug also, to a reloader the effects on the case from stretching would have showed up very plain.Mike you reload so you would have noticed, but many more others don't. AND in the instance Ken related the fellow didn't reload, just shot and chucked the cases and not being reloaders noticing anything out of the ordinary.And then they fired a round that may have been warmed, had moisture or something in barrel,etc and it let loose.The other thing is that the tang could have
bent allowing bolt handle base to slip over.That was just
related about a WIN 70 that they figure was underloaded with wrong powder(this guy reloaded and when his loads were checked they were all over the scale some 40 gr less than what he said he loaded to), detonated, and blew bolt out, shearing lugs, & bending tang where bolt handle seated.
We need to run a test sometime on a Wea by taking off all
lugs and say put heavy rubber band on handle just holding bolt forwaed for proper firing pin contact and allow bolt to get a run at the stop on the tang. And fire off a 75k round like Norma was loading for Weatherby
and see what happens to bolt handle.Probably should be done on all styles that have a forged on handle, just to see what bolt handles would take.Maybe results would scare the hell out of us.Ed.

I have seen stress fatigue break metal parts in machinery that you would never dream could be broken . So I don't see you can dismiss the possiblity that the bolt let go just as stated. If the root of the bolt were not well seated, I think it's entirely possible it would not hold the many thousands of lbs of thrust that would be applied to it .

It is also possible that the bolt handle was taking a pounding even while the locking lugs were going south . There would not neccesarily be visible sighns of this . I've see many machine parts let go with no preceeding visible signs of a problem............

I�m always ready to learn something new ... and all sides of this thread have been thought provoking ... especially since more than one of the afore-mentioned (9-lug) Wby rifles resides in my basement. Curiosity tugged, so I pulled out one of my stainless Wby bolts and squinted at it both in and out of the rifles action.

Using a Starrett dial caliper and my (1-cup-o-coffee) Mark-4 eyeball, combined with a dash of Excel, it appears that the potential �bearing� surface area of the fully-closed bolt handle, that could absorb the rearward thrust of the bolt, is roughly 56% of the combined surface area of the 9 forward locking lugs. That�s a greater �potential� area than having 5 outa the 9 lugs intact ... The Wby bolt is a forging and this potential bolt-handle/receiver contact area is adjacent to the bolts diameter, so there is not a significant lever-arm acting here.

Now, everyone loves a mystery ... and �Enquiring- minds� want to know ...

1) Did all 9 of the locking lugs get stripped off the bolt, or were the corresponding mating surfaces on the receiver torn off the bolt raceway ?

2) Was the damage to the bolt handle recess on the receiver consistent with the bolt having been fully-closed, when the round in question was fired/(ker-sploded)?

3) Had the shooter removed and re-inserted the Wby�s bolt, just before the Ka-boom ?

4) Was the shooters right thumb nearly removed .. (or just scarred on the dorsal side)?

The problem I am having in visualizing this failure (even allowing that the final round fired may have had a pressure spike of 90 or 100K psi) is that as the locking lugs are being cracked (over time on previous firings), pushed back, deformed, etc. that one would expect a noticeable change in the effort (smoothness/roughness) of the cycling of the bolt. (ie: that even minimally-displaced metal had to go somewhere). I know if I�m shooting one of my rifles and the bolt is closing �funny�, you better believe that I will be removing the bolt and examining it for a piece of debris (brass shaving, etc.) or for foreign material in the raceway or chamber ... (this guy had supposedly fired this rifle a lot and should have been familiar with how its bolt normally cycled ...)

Having just been through the Rem-700 (fire on Safety-release), I decided to play with the Stainless Wby Mark-5 I took the measurements on. If you remove the bolt and then re-insert it (requires the trigger to be pulled fully rearward to insert), the firing pin will release ... �if� you continue to hold the trigger fully rearward and push the bolt fully forward (and attempt to �cam� the bolt to its closed position) .

This trigger-release on bolt close is not a 1 in 100 occurrence, but is 100% repeatable (on three different Mark-5 Wby�s), since the bolt cocks on opening and the trigger must be pulled to re-insert the bolt. The correct-procedure is to let go of the trigger after the bolt is an inch or so into the receiver (and of course, to have the chamber and magazine empty). If the trigger is released once the bolt is in the raceway, there is no slam-fire, regardless of how hard/fast I tried to close the bolt.

Imagine this scenario and assume that the shooter is firing �prone� (as Ken recalled):

A) - - Repeated firings of full-boogie Weatherby factory loads have cracked and weakened the 9 locking lugs (on the bolt), to the point where the cycling of the bolt is noticeably rough.

B) - - The (prone) shooter, pulls the bolt, inspects it, but doesn�t detect any problem.

C) - - The shooter, who was working with rounds loaded from the magazine, pulls the trigger so he can insert the bolt ... and either picks up a round from the magazine (as the bolt moves forward) or had previously fed one in the chamber .. and as the bolt moves forward (with the trigger still pulled) causes the rifle to fire just as the bolt is beginning to cam shut.

D) - - With the weakened lugs only partially engaged (and not much of the bolt handle engaged in the receivers rear slot), the pressure spikes and with only a small (weakened) lug area engaged and supporting the bolt, the bolt becomes a (high mass/low velocity) rearward �bullet�.

E) - - If this was the scenario (fire on bolt-closure), the palm-side of the shooters right thumb should have received a serious blow from the bolt handles rearward journey ... versus ... if his right hand was in the normal firing position of gripping the stocks wrist ... in which case he might have only a serious cut across the back side of his right thumb.

Still curious .... and would love to have some photos/details from the shooters mouth.

... Silver Bullet

P.S. - - Rust never sleeps ...this also reminded me that I need to clean/inspect all my bolts !!

Silver--that is a way it could have happened.In all of the

myriad off things that can go wrong there is a big chance of operator error.when you refer to contact area, do you mean where the lugs and seats contact ? The area that is critical I think is the cross section where lugs and handle mount to bolt body.That is what has to shear or crack for failure.The total shear area of the 9 lugs is 90% of what a Savage is for example.All you Weatherby guys should take a black marker and check your 9 lugs for contact, by marking the backs of all the lugs and

cycle bolt a few times.I check my wildcat test rifles regularly

to make sure that the two bolt lugs bear together with the extra bearing surface I put on bolt handle.That extra bolt handle surface increased my shear rating from 33k to 53 k,

which with a max load(55k psi loading) giving thrust of 10k on bolt, with my 458HE.That increased safety factor from 3 times to 5 times.Notice this is with handle working as a regular lug. in conjunction with other two.

Not as a stop if others fail and bolt gets a run at it...EACH

WEATHERBY LUG ON AVERAGE.ONLY 3400 LBS OF SHEAR.

Interesting???Ed.

SD, I checked my Weatherby, realizing that one rifle is not a sum of the whole, but there is .003" clearance between the bolt and the notch it fits into on the reciever. I would think that on repeated firings, with a rifle in this condition, that as you lifted the bolt it would chafe on the action, leaving telltale signs that something was amiss.



Not a doubt in my mind that the mishap did occur, just curious as to the cause.

OK, I have a Ruger M77 that I had my gunsmith put a Douglas size 3 X barrel, 26 inches long on. It has alot of freebore, just like factory weatherby's so the rifle can easily shoot Weatherby factory ammo. The caliber is 240 Weatherby. To put it bluntly, those of you in the know, is the Ruger (80's era, tang safety, with a timney trigger in it) bolt of suffecient strength. I couldnt tell you beans about strength of the Ruger bolt, other than I always assumed it was a good one.

Silver_Bullet

I think there are perhaps a couple of potential problems with the scenario you outlined.

When you partially closed the bolt and fired the rifle did you try it with a primed case.?

If in fact the gun would fire the primer and the bolt let go and even if the bolt encountered zero resistance and also assuming that the case held, then the velocity of the bolt would make it very unlikely that it could penetratre to the persons lower neck, especially since the bolt handle is still there. The outcome for the person would be real interesting but I don't think there was any mention.

I am still betting we have a half baked story on our plate. Similar to someone who shoots a deer or kangaroo and the animal runs 50 yards. The person with a bias against the calibre/projectile etc has the deer or roo going 300 yards. The person with bias in favour of the calibre/projectile has the deer or roo drop on the spot.

Mike

You are correct, I was merely looking at the cross-sectional area of surface contact. The total area that would need to completely "shear" to allow the bolt to travel rearward, would be larger for both the 9-lugs and the bolt handle/receiver-cut.

Since this episode (bolt embedded in the face) probably gained some press at the time, it would sure be nice to track-down more specifics.

S.B.

Aggie--Ruger is one of the strongest-my first wildcat test rifle was early 77..

AJ ,Seeing as how the bolt handle base is only .003 from
the abutment it is hard to see how bolt can get out of there.
Is your gun headspaced like new,IE hoping that .003 figure
isn't the result of setback..The mauser styles I have are quite a ways from that abutment.Like .030.Ed.

Just tried the SS .300 Wby with a new primed Norma brass case, hand inserted (it won't feed just a case from the magazine) and it dented the primer, but no primer ignition occurred ....

This (should-have) simulated the use of factoy ammo (standard dimensioned case). Just more Hmmmm ??

I take it that your "most-likely" scenario involves a plugged barrel and/or misload, generating an exceptionally high pressure peak (> 100K ?) or .... ??

S.B.

Ed, headspace should be good. Rifle hasn't seen any factory ammo. Kinda one of those interesting ones. I've primarlly worked with 180g partitions in her (elk hunting rifle). Using IMR7828, Nosler lists a max load of 84.5 grains. IMR used to list 86 grains as max. When I started working up loads, at 84 grains, the bolt had resistance, ejector marks showed on some of the brass. Ran back down to 83 grains, getting 3150 across the chrono, left well enough alone. On the other hand, one of my shooting pals is running 86 grains thru a Vanguard without any pressure signs, forgot his velocity. You should see what it did to his throat though!!! He had to rebarrel, but did put some 3000 rounds thru that barrel.

S.B.

It could be that and then the story got distorted with the bolt flying out and it was just standard ammo etc. and etc.

Actually, I reckon a solid man could stop the bolt coming out with his hand if it was say a 257 or 300. After all, if the bolt is "free" its momentum will be the same as the bullet and the gas. Of course in practice the whole momentum number would be way down because as soon as the case head cleared the chamber the pressure would drop right down.

But we have something far better than the strong man's hand, we have the integral bolt handle and that is the fly in the ointment.

Mike

Just a note of interest.

The 280 Ross MKIII rifle carried by the canadins in WW1
suffered from bolt blowback. If the bolt was disassembled and then reassemebled incorrectly the bolt would appear to close but the bolt head would not go into the keyways.
When fired the bolt would blow back into the face of the
shooter.

Mike--The bolt handle is the puzzle. and I know that is why
you asked the question.Being it is a forging along with bolt it could have been defective.Like motor crankshafts that are forgings, I have seen two break for no good reason.If the
handles are close to abutments on Wea as poster says then
they could get beat up as all the lugs set back from many firings and if there was fault in the forging of the handle base
it is possible that it could have been be stress cracked
wher there was a weak spot, and let loose when the others failed and it had to take the whole
load.I checked the handles on my Ruger and Enfields,
that I used in load testing my wildcats, before I put extra
bearing surface on them, with a
hard rap from a hammer and they didn't move.Just to
be safe.Sure is a puzzle...Ed.

Ed,

If the bolt penetrated under the shooter's eye and went to his lower neck then I can't see how the bolt handle was still there. But I still can't see how the rifle would have been functioning with the bolt handle damaged enough for it not to hold. Would you be able to open the bolt after a shot?

Which brings me back to either

1) The rifle had some fault.

2) The story is only partly true.

However, I remain to be convinced that it was a combination of Wby ammo, 9 lugs and a "normal" Wby rifle.

Something else to consider. The shooter was shooting prone so it is highly unlikely that it was a 378, 416 or 460 Wby. It was many years ago so is also unlikley to be a 30/378 so that of course leaves us with the H&H case head.

Also, the fact that he was sighting the rifle in prone instead of from a bench would suggest he was not a gun nut who would be firing lots and lots of shots.

Anyway, as long as my new 378s that should be here in May don't let the bolt out to wander around the place on their own <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Mike

Mr. Howell,

Noone has questioned your motives or used perjorative
name-calling as you are doing. Ad hominem attacks
and snide twisting of your interlocutor's points do you no
service as a professional in the trade. Your expertise ought
to be evident in presentation of facts.

The first question remains open. Are Weatherby factory rounds
safe? Of course, the topic now has been expanded to include
Weatherby rifles.

Your comments 'suggest' -- not prove -- that they are not,
based on hypthoses -- maybe valid -- growing out of your
technical knowledge and observations and two reported accidents
with no direct evidence on their root causes. While interesting
and worth pursuing, these are still opinions that do not prove
anything.

We still need statistically significant data on failures
or compelling direct test results. An explanation of the large
numbers of those products in regular use w/o evident dire
results also would also be useful.

Unsafe is unsafe. Unsafe rifles using unsafe ammo on the
scale suggested here should be failing all the time. Why
aren't they?

What about you Weatherby owners out there? How many of you
have had direct -- not second-hand -- experience of a
structurally failed rifle caused by unsafe factory rounds?

I am willing to be convinced by facts. I am too old and
experienced in sorting out wheat and chaff to be buffaloed
by theories and bombast.

1B

Mike-I think to get bolt out if lugs fail, the handle has to come
off also if it is in the groove, and I think that may be possible if it had a fault.Or the abutment had a fault.If bolt handle was only .003 away from abutment it would be easy for lugs to set back that much, and handle start acting like lug, getting beat on with firings.And still cycle right.And if faulty may have stress cracked.I know it it was not faulty you couldn't crack
it from my own experience using bolt handle as an extra thrust surface, unless all other lugs had cracked.That is what Ken is thinking. Those small case hardened lug are not going to deform and allow others too pick up thrust as bolt moves back, I think they will crack if only a few bear at a time.
And maybe due to all these things it was no longer a
normal Weatherby rifle.That term is the crux of what went wrong in these incidents.
The fact that he was shooting prone perhaps got a slug of dirt
in for obstruction.Out in sun case got hot.Or operator error as alluded to above with bolt partly out of battery, when it went
off..Weird things can happen..
You have great fun with your
new rifles, and I don't think you as a knowledgeable shooter/ reloader will have problems...Ed.

Everyone who knows me can tell you that I'm worlds easier to get along with than the average or typical old coot my age. But alleging that I'm BSing, stupid, biased, gullible, or lying when I present serious facts and carefully formed analysis is not the surest way to attract my sweetest smile or warmest welcome. Au contraire, IMO, such allegations or suggestions invite firm resistance, strong words, and little or no civility.

Hindsight indicates that my chief error here was posting what amounts to unforgivable heresy in the eyes of those who worship Weatherby, then trying to reason calmly and sanely with one of that cult's dedicated high priests. I don't give a fancy flip one way or another whether Weatherby's stuff is the best or the worst that ever came along.

It's clear, OTOH, that I've been facing-off with at least one who obviously can't bear to think that anything Weatherby is less than the ultimate in perfection. The total absence of bias that enabled me to reason as I did, compared with the absolute rule of worshipful bias against it, should tell you something about both the probable validity of my conjecture and the denunciation heaped upon it here.

Sorry, but I can't see how criticism of my tone of voice is any substitute for solid, fact-based, logical rebuttal. But I can see how someone, given the inability to provide the latter, has only the former to fall back onto if he feels compelled to rebuke me.

I do see your point to this extent -- I will say no more here about any of this. Sleep tight, and don't let the bedbugs bite! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Ken,

Those that know me are very well aware that I am not biased to Wby actions. An opinion whichI have voiced many times both in person and on forums is that I think the Wby action suffers design problems which are a product of the marketing requirement. Poor primary extraction due to the 54 degree bolt lift, rear scope mount holes that are bit shallow and caused by the desire to use a Rem 700 rear receiver dimension but then use up a substantial proportion of the metal to accomodate the large diamter bolt. The front action screw up into a deep recoil lug which leaves little stock material between the clamping of the floor plate and bottom of the recoil lug which makes it quite awkward to put some sort of pillar in there if wood is crushing. The very short bedding platform behind the recoil lug caused by the long magazine requirement in what is a Rem 700 length receiver deprived Wby of being able to place the front screw through the bedding platform, which is a superior system as used in both Rem 700 and M70. Biased to Wby, I don't think so.

You appear to have forgotten that I said let's machine the locking lugs off the action. I through Wby advertising in the bin.

You brought to the table something which on your own admission was heresay. You discussed locking lugs but failed to even raise the issue of the integral bolt handle, a lock up which Silver_Bullet calculated as being 56% of the area of the 9 small locking lugs.

If you read the thread you will see the premise for my doubt was mainly based on the integral bolt handle, something common to several actions.

In short, if your example had been based on a Sako or Howa my response would have been the same as in either case the integral bolt is there.

Mike

Hi, Mike!

Hope all's well with you and yours, now and ever! And that Anno Domini 2004 turns out to be the best year of your life!

Ken,

Same wishes to you and yours as well.

It is 8.30pm Saturday night out here and I am going to watch a movie. I hope I don't dream about bolt handles tonight. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Mike

A couple of points are in order. Weatherby tried several sources for his actions, always switching
to improve "quality control". Perhaps some locking lugs will experience brittle fracture before they
yeild. Very few Weatherby rifle have been fired a lot. This is due to recoil, noise, and cost ($4 a pop).
Maybe they arent all that safe after all.
Good luck!

IRV,
You have made some interesting points.

"Weatherby tried several sources for his actions, always switching to improve "quality control".

I think you will find that the reasons Weatherby changed places to manufacture its rifles is more to do with the cost of manufacture .Not concerns of any safety issues of the product.


The improvement of quality control is a by product of current manufacturing techniques,computerised machinery etc.
"Very few Weatherby rifle have been fired a lot. "

I guess I have been lucky in having been able to shoot 1000's of rounds thru different Weatherby rifles and have shooting friends that have done the same.
MIKE 375 for example would be a good guy to chat to about shooting lots of rounds thru Weatherby rifles and other brands of rifles chambered in 375 H&H.
So far the only problems I have seen photo's of or heard about other than plugged barrel damage from a foreign object is a broken extractor due to an overload.
This is why the example by Mr Howell is of great interest to me .It is the first example I have heard about where a Weatherby rifle has come apart ,reported by a reputable firearms person.

One of the benefits of living down under is that we have the opportunity to participate in feral animal control,some people shooting hundreds and some times thousands of rounds a year,not quite like the hunting in your country where I understand only very few animals maybe taken a year .

"This is due to recoil, noise, and cost ($4 a pop)."

If you are keen enough the price of admission is never a problem.You should try a 257WBY ,very little recoil,no more noise than say a 270 WIN,very effective at all sane hunting ranges on suitable sized critters.
If you only need one or 2 shots even at $4 each its still a bargain.

"Perhaps some locking lugs will experience brittle fracture before they yeild."
Anything is possible,but this is also true of any action.


"Maybe they arent all that safe after all."

If you have any more documented examples of Weatherby rifles that have been defective or injured the shooter due to any manufacturing or factory ammunition problems please feel free to let us know.

Enjoy your day,
Regards,
Charlie

irv,



I think there is a lot of truth in what you say. However, I think there are also some factors that may mean a higher percentage of Wbys get hammered than is the case with other actions.



Firstly are the chamberings. People with 257 Wbys etc are far more likley to chase the top velocity than is the case for other calibres. People chasing both velocity and accuracy will fire more shots than someone just chasing accuracy.



Secondly, the Wby action has been used so much for big wildcats, most notably the 30/378 and 338/378 before they were factory rounds. A Wby rifle in say 257 or 300 is very easy to have converted to a 30/378 or 338/378. The Wby action also has a longer magazine than the M70 or Rem 700 and so is a natural for people doing 7mm STWs, 300 Jarrets etc where they want bullets seated out. I think you would agree that shooters with these type of calibre will do far more testing than the average owner of a Ruger 30/06.



Lastly, there is one other thing that might be worthy of consideration.



I think that just about everyone would agree that advertising and promotion has its share of BS. However, in general the product will tend towards what is advertised rather than away from what is advertised. So Remington might promote their Sendero as man's answer to any and all accuracy problems which of course will be BS. But on average the Sendero is going to be more accurate than most other light barreled factory rifles. Given how strong Wby's promotion is of the action being very strong and safe I think it is unlikley as some of the posters on this thread have suggested that it is in fact a poor action for safety as compared to other actions.



While some of Wby's claims for action strength are undoubtedly BS, it is reasonable to say that the Wby action will be up at the top of list for "safe actions to use" with over loaded ammo and all evidence would indicate that it has been well tried in this regard. I know I have made my own personal contribution field testing its strength and safety <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />



Mike

Mike-Neighbor and his brother have shot thousands of rounds rthrough their 460s.They reload.They say that most of their lugs bear even because they checked them/When they were new.Both are knowledgeable gunnuts.They still have about .003 clearance
from bolt handle to abutment.So it is a case I think of most Weatherbys bearing on most of the lugs ok, and some that don't which may give a problem if too few are holding to start with.The term you use "normal' is the crux.And i am sure that there are a few of any brand of different designs,that may not have good fit and bearing of the lugs.And we really hope nothing goes wrong.Their is dozens of two lug types. some 3 lugs, 4 lugs, 5 lugs, 6 lugs,other 9 lugs, and all these types with rear locking also, so I am sure it isn't all perfect with Weatherby's competition.And again we hope nothing goes
wrong..Ed.

Charlie, thanks for the response...........I stewed over that one myself.

Ed,

It is a pity we don't have the dollars to line several of each action up and then get stuck into them.

A gunsmith out here whose father was probably Australia's version of PO Ackley always use to say the M17 was the best if you had a ridiculous overload.

This bloke, he died a few years ago, use to test different wildcats with the extractor and stock off the M17.

When I was about 20, now 55, this gunsmith and myself did quite a bit of testing. I knew him very well because my father and him were very good friends (Charlie, if you are reading this I am referring to Don Black)

The real suprise package is the 303 SMLE. They won't shoot for [bleep] with high pressure loads but don't believe for one moment that a big load willl take one apart.

By the way, what is your feeling of the strength of the Wby receiver as a result of the very small locking lug recesses?

Mike

For another input on this point.., see page 6 of Rifle's
Handloader magazine, no. 24 of August 2003.

"I have yet to receive a communication from anyone claiming
a factory load blew up a gun of any kind." Dave Scovill,
editor in chief. (He goes on to cover some handloading/user
errors that have had this result.)

1B

Of course, if Weatherby ammo cost less than it does now, and brass wasnt so expensive, plus maybe the rifles were somewhat more competitive with current factory offerings, I suspect there would be a whole bunch more fans and shooters from a hunting perspective of Weatherby rifles, and cartridges. It is amusing that most are trying to push the envelope to gain maximum velocity out of their standard cartridge, when all one needs to do in many cases, not all, is take advantage of the weatherby cartridges.

Mike-yes the SMLE is stronger than people think.Perfect for
40-45,000 psi loaded 45-70 or 45-90. The small lug recesses
don't weaken the Wea reciever any more than the wide recesses on my Ruger or Enfield.Overall ouside diameter is about the same as Ruger.So the only troubling thing,
that bothers me, is if too few lugs are bearing, at the start of the rifles life.And it is like you say, be nice to have piles of extra actions to run blowup and overload tests on..Ed.

I can remember blowing the primer out of it's pocket with factory ammo on my then new 240 Weatherby Magnum, Mk. V. When I took the ammo back to the dealer, he took it and complained to the Weatherby rep. The rep told him, "if you don't like or ammo, don't shoot it." I was not given a refund or any more ammo. The rep wasn't interested in passing the bad ammo on to the factory.
I will not buy any ammo with the Weatherby headstamp to this day. E

Rumur I am hearing is Weatherby is in serious financial straits as we speak.

AggieDog

Care to elaborate?

Maybe Remington will take them over and that should guarantee that only 1 of the 9 lugs bear <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Mike

MIke, I heard that from a guide over in the Paso Robles CA area. Atascadaro, CA, home of Weatherby, is only a few miles from there. That's all I know, and I did say it was a rumor. Personally, I hope they are OK, as I happen to like the weatherby cartridges, and probably would own several of their rifles if I could free up the cash.

AggieDog,

I just posted a duplicate of your two postings on AccurateReloading's Africa forum and their Big game forum as exposure will be much greater than the tail end of this thread.

Mike

Man, what a thread! I think I can shed some light on the original question and to the ensuing discussion. Weatherby uses NORMA MRP powder for their loads. If you find an old Weatherby Guide, the factory equivalent loads DO use MRP and they match pretty well the POINT OF IMPACT that corresponding factory loads print using both Hornady and Nosler Partitons, the only bullets loaded by Weatherby back then. Keep in mind that the Weatherby Guide went out of print in 1984 so the newer cartridges are not listed. However, the 30/378 Weatherby was used by Elgin Gates as far back as 1959. It's in his book, Trophy Hunting In Africa. Weatherby just chose not to release it back then.

Also as previously stated, the bullets used by Weatherby in 1984 were just two, the Hornady Interlock and the Nosler Partition, so if you try and load say, a Barnes X you might get into trouble and if you read further you might see why.

As far as hot loads in concerned, when I was preparing for my safari in 01, I elected to use 180 gr Barnes Xs FactoryWeatherby loads in my 300 Weatherby, producing less than 1" groups ( I bought 6 boxes all the same lot numbers). In July ( temp 92 deg here in Jacksonville), I took them to the range one more time to check zero. The bolt locked up, needing a rubber malet to open. The primers was blown. I tried one more with the same results. I immediately called Weatherby and they asked me to send them the ammo which I did and they replaced it with 180grain Factory Hornady ammo. No problems with those. I kept a few rounds of the hot stuff and will make it available to anyone that cares to analyze them. Weatherby NEVER did get back to me on their analysis. My conjecture is that Weatherby used the same powder charge for the Barnes X as they did for their Hornady and Nosler Partition tipped ammo and the pressure was excessive. I have continued to use Weatherbys and Norma MRP ammo, I just limit myself to Nosler Partitions and Hornadys and feel totally comfortable. jorge

We have some very bright minds working way too hard on theory above.

The complete facts should be known first.

In the mean time can someone list the causes of gun blow ups in order of frequency?

Something tells me that the guy with the bolt in his neck didn't care whether it was the locking lugs or the bolt handle that gave out.

Relative to the rumur, that is all it was a rumur. Sorry if I started a flight over it. For the record, I would own nothing but Mark V's if I could afford it.