204Ruger

Check the short video clips on this page (from Sweden) to see some tests on different rifles being fired with a full charge and a bullet stuck in the barrel.

http://www.testfakta.se/Article.aspx?a=16350

Can you imagine what your hand would look like after shooting the Remington and Browning?

It is interesting how the two American rifles blew the barrels while the others did not. I would be curious to know if the test was biased in any way or if in fact, the Remington and Browning would be more dangerous in this situation.

It would also be interesting to know if all rifles were the same chambering and if they were all shooting the same loads.

You can past the above link in here for a half --- translation!

http://www.systranbox.com/systran/box



Anyone here read Swedish?

http://www.testfakta.se/Article.aspx?a=16439

It appears that all the rifles had some sort of failure. The Tikka and the Sako have small smoke columns about 4 inches in front of the chamber. I can’t read Swedish nor do I know if it was an anti American plot. Just thought it was an interesting set of films. I guess I felt good that the Sako did not grenade like the Remington, but I also own a very nice .270 custom on a Remington action. It just lives in my safe. I like my Winchester featherweight much more.
The value of the films is that they show we are playing a very serious game here. I do not want anyone’s rifle to blow no matter what brand it is. Please be careful and look for the powder before you seat a bullet.

WHISTLEPIG wrote:It appears that all the rifles had some sort of failure. The Tikka and the Sako have small smoke columns about 4 inches in front of the chamber. I can’t read Swedish nor do I know if it was an anti American plot. Just thought it was an interesting set of films. I guess I felt good that the Sako did not grenade like the Remington, but I also own a very nice .270 custom on a Remington action. It just lives in my safe. I like my Winchester featherweight much more.
The value of the films is that they show we are playing a very serious game here. I do not want anyone’s rifle to blow no matter what brand it is. Please be careful and look for the powder before you seat a bullet.

Well said! I sincerely doubt ANY rifle could withstand a follow-on bullet to bullet confrontation, Sako, Remington, Winchester, or Panda, for that matter. Let's just all be careful, and leave that stuff for the companies doing the testing

at my hunter safety course, the instructors brought in a cz chambered in .22 hornet (i think) that was cut in half to sho 7 bullets in the barrel.

It is hard for me to believe that any of them would sustain a double-stuff much less with no apparent damage?????

My guess is the foriegn rifles have weaker steel in thier barrels, allowing for a fracture to occur where the bullet on bullet collision occurred.

The American Steel (being superior in strength - like our Armed Forces) allowed MUCH higher pressure to build, resulting in a catastrophic failure - kinda like a pipe bomb!



I would also like to add it appeared the foriegn rifles had the 'squib' much closer to the chamber........about 4" - with the barrel fracturing prematurely this would be a controlled 'eruption' similiar to a volcanic fissure.
The American rifles (judging by location of failure and barrel ballooning) appeared to have the squib located much farther down the barrel - allowing for more gas volume = a larger and more catastrophic failure (explosion).

Just my observation.

Uuuummmmm............. what's a squib???

For example, a primer-only load is a good example of a squib, or any undercharged load.

Thank you, Glenn!

I would say the foreigners got just a primer and the Americans had about 2 grains in them!

It's REALLY obvious if you slow-mo the video frame by frame.

I know this is ot but every time i see this topic i remember this one
http://www.eyecatcher.net/cartoons/cartoon.html