"Houston, we have a problem"

[locknloadnow]

some interesting case head separation info
 
http://stevespages.com/diagnosingproblems.html

[RatherBHuntin]

ouch!  One of the neighbors at the hunting camp was visiting and told us he got a new rifle adn a box of ammo with it.  He then gave it to a friend to scope and sight in.....along with the box of shells.   Apparently they were 270 shells and a 7 Mag rifle I think.  The friend proceeded to shoot the whole box before he figured out they weren't the right shells.

[Paul Hoskins]

One of the most overlooked causes of problems like this is not enough clearance between the case neck and chamber neck. See example. ...........Paul H

[sakorick]

That's ugly.

[Paul Hoskins]

I agree Rick. This is what happened after firing a 22 Newton in a chamber made with a regular 224 chambering reamer. The cartridge went in the chamber ok but there was no neck clearance for expansion to  release the bullet. Fortunately the action was a Ruger #1 instead of a bolt gun.  ..........Paul H

[locknloadnow]

the most nightmarish thing fathomable, is the bolt flying back and hitting the shooter in the face

[gitano]

is the bolt flying back and hitting the shooter in the face

Is there even one verified example of that EVER happening in the history of bolt action firearms? If you know of one, I'd appreciate the citation.
 
Paul

[RatherBHuntin]

Apparently the Ross rifles did that Paul, I think there are a lot of second hand accounts of it, don't know of any first hand documentation.  But those were due to Rifle/Bolt issues, not necessarily ammo.

[gitano]

If you can point me in the right direction Glenn, I'll try to find some verification. I don't know what Ross rifles you refer to.
 
Paul

[locknloadnow]

Is there even one verified example of that EVER happening in the history of bolt action firearms? If you know of one, I'd appreciate the citation.
Paul

 
Certainly- one has to be careful with certain types of the vintage straight pull bolt actions- i.e. the "interrupted screw type"- (no foul intended, that's their technical name)- they don't lock as solidly as the Mauser type, and are easy to "mis-assemble"- and yes, many shooters were killed and maimed when the bolt blew back in their faces- this is why the straight pull actions are no longer produced today, in any form- even though they do cycle faster, they are not as safe as a turnbolt. It is possible to remove the bolt head of our Steyr M95's and assemble it incorrectly, so the locking lugs are on the wrong side- but most likely it would not pick up the shell and chamber it- I've never tried it to find out- but be careful with any straight pull. Think about it, all it needs is sufficient force rearward, and it will unlock and the bolt will fly backwards.
 

[gitano]

this is why the straight pull actions are no longer produced today, in any form-

That's not correct. Steyr, at least, is producing at least one model of straight-pull bolt rifle. I think Blaser is as well.
 
What is the citation for the above article?
 
Paul

[Brithunter]

Hmmm let's see in recent production were :-

Mauser M96 Slide Bolt
Blaser R93
Heym SR? (sorry I cannot remember their model #)

I am not aware of the Steyr model but it would not surprise me at all after all they got in on the straight pull back in 1888 and it was this Steyr that inspired Sir Chales Ross.

   Gitano the Ross was the Model 1910 and was due to operator error in stripping the bolt and incorrect assembly they forcing said bolt into the action. The rifle would **** the mainspring but the bolt lugs were never engaged or locked. In this (difficult to achieve) condition the rifle would fire a cartridge with an unlocked bolt. There are a couple of sort of documented cases in the US of this happening and rumours of it happening in France however these french ones might have been an attempt to add to the pressure to replace the Ross in the Trenches with Lee's due to the Ross's weaker primary extraction and jamming with less than perfact cartridges in the mud and stuff at the front.


Phil Sharp did all he could to destroy the reutation of the Ross rifle as he hated them for some reason. The Ross M10 sporting rifle in 280 Ross, which is one of the highest pressure cartridges developed, is still high on my want list. British proof pressure for the 280 Ross is 28 tons. 270 Win and 300 Win mag is 20 tons !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is one reason why Eley-Kynoch developed the 280 Nitro cartridge which used the Ross case loaded to lower pressures for those who wanted to use the weaker Mauser 98 actions. I have a couple of the Eley 280 Nitro cartridges in my small collection.

 Yes in fact Mausers built to handle the 280 Ross developed lug set back so this was a way around that as at that time the Ross 280 was very popular in the British Empire.

The Blaser R93 of course is still in production and very popular, the Mauser is not and the company has changed hands and moved and now have the radical M03 Mauser in production. I believe that the Heym is still made it uses ball bearings to lock into seats by a camming action I seem to recall. The Russians made a special ISU competition rifle for Olympic running target which was a straight pull upon the Ross basis .

[RatherBHuntin]

Ron, aka Buckshot Roberts, has "A Rifleman Went to War" by H. W. McBride and I think it's in there where he talks about the Ross.  I also read it in one of the last two American Rifleman as well I think.

[shinz]

As BH has alluded to, the 1910 Ross was an immensely strong action when assembled correctly. I have only read the commonly available info about this problem so have nothing more to add to this aspect.
As shooters of LE 303s well know, their chambers are often horribly oversize to ensure reliablity of feeding & extraction with all types of 303 ammo from various makers & dirty & scruffy ammo too. Total battlefield reliability but a handloaders nightmare. The Ross rifles were apparently made with what approached match grade chambers & under battle condtions & those prevailing in the WW1 trenches, poor feeding & extraction was almost inevitable.
Steve

[locknloadnow]

What is the citation for the above article?
Paul

the author was JACK O'CONNOR
 
you can make any semi auto rifle into a straight pull by blocking the gas port and cycling the action manually by hand, not exactly the most desireable action- at least one of the so-called "new" straight pulls are actually a semiauto action worked in manual mode, see below:
 
http://www.chuckhawks.com/bolt_action.htm
 
"The fastest form of bolt action rifle is the straight pull action. The Canadian Ross rifle of pre-WW I fame was the first of the breed with which I am familiar. Such rifles have never been popular because they usually sacrifice too many of the bolt action's virtues (camming action on extraction, controlled feed, simplicity of design) for a fairly minor increase in speed of operation. The straight pull bolt action is still slower than a lever, pump, or autoloading rifle.
But straight pull designs are still occasionally seen. And they do provide faster follow-up shots than a turnbolt action. Two recent examples are the Blaser R 93 and the Browning Acera. The latter is basically a manually operated version of the BAR autoloader, with the BAR's multiple lug rotating bolt head. The Blaser action uses an expanding collar to lock the bolt, and is available in a wide variety of calibers from .22-250 to the .416 Remington Magnum. Faster is better, but not to the exclusion of all else"
 
you had asked if anyone ever got hit with a bolt in the face- the answer is yes, many did- that's one reason why Paul Mauser put the 3rd safety lug on Mauser model 98, to protect the shooter when/if the 2 front locking lugs were sheared off by catastrophic failure- the bolt hitting the shooter in the face, is not an unknown occurrence, it can happen even with modern actions- the point is, the interrupted screw straight pull type was especially dangerous, and had a history of that happening when misassembled- and any straight pull doesn't lock up tightly to begin with
 
question- if the goal is shoot fast, why not just get a modern semiauto and be done with it ?
 
here's one case of shooter being hit by bolt from a Mossberg:
 
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/1895607/page/1/nt/10/fpart/1
 
quote:
 
"About a week after I heard about this incident, I ran into an old high school buddy of mine who told me that the hunter, Heath Ryder, worked for him. He said the rifle had been purchased new about 2 weeks prior to the incident and had been fired less than a half dozen times with factory ammo only. The damage was quite extensive and could have been fatal if he had not been hunting with a group of family members who got him evacuated quickly. Apparently destroyed the lower left mandible and most of the soft tissue (lips, and cheek). Will be in for several re-constructive surgeries before he is functional again. Luckily no eye damage. I'd say he was due some compensation for his injuries. I bet some of the ones snickering here would be wanting some too, had they had a bolt from a defective rifle blow through their face. "

[Brithunter]

Hmmm so your following Chuckhawks in saying that the screw type breech closure is weak and liable to fail?


















Funny how artillery is often closed in such a way :smiley: and you don't hear of reported blow up and gunners getting killed by their own breech blocks ............................ do you?.






Now Ross Seyfried tried to assembly a Ross M10 bolt incorrectly and failed. On his own that is. He found it took three hands and a srewdriver as a lever  I have heard that a Blaser R93 failed in Africa. It seems the owner used very hot loaded ammo from a colder clime and coupled with fine sand well the collet didn't lock fully. However no photos just rumour, sounds  bit like Phil Sharpe and the Ross to me but hey I suppose it could be true :undecided: let's face it if you load the cartridge incorrectly, as in handloading, then it's possible to blow up just about any rifle.

[RatherBHuntin]

Funny how artillery is often closed in such a way :smiley: and you don't hear of reported blow up and gunners getting killed by their own breech blocks ............................ do you?.

I've spent many years working with interupted thread screw breech blocks, they don't fail.

[gitano]

the author was JACK O'CONNOR

I assume the all caps is for emphasis that it came from one that sits on the right hand of God, but that's not a citation, it's just the author. I'm looking for the citation for the publication. In what publication was it published, and on what date?.
 
Locknload, You appear to be someone that relies heavily on what other people think and write. My experience has been that what gunwriters (ptooey) spew is occassionally, but rarely, even remotely true. Speaking only for myself, I rely almost exclusively on first-hand information, the exception being someone I know very well, and whose word I have seen verified. Based on what research I have been able to do, the Ross rifle problems were due SOLELY to improper assembly. The Mossberg incident above, I have questions about, but nonetheless, it wasn't a straight pull. (Reading that thread by the way, just reinforces why I don't waste any time there any more.)
 
My point is this: Quote gunwriters (ptooey), (even the likes of the sainted Jack O'Connor), to support some point of view, and you will continue to receive at least some argument. If you want to report your first-hand experiences, you will find instead, conversation.
 
Nothing that has been written in this thread can change reality, and until someone can come up with verified evidence to the contrary, there is nothing to suggest with actual evidence that straight bolt actions are more 'dangerous' or 'weak' or prone to failure than rotating bolt actions.
 
Paul

[LvrLover]

Paul, am I hearing that I shouldn't swallow everything whole that St. Jack had to say? I have to have some use of my brain and pick the meat from the bones in the writings of other vaulted gun writers too? What ever shall I do? On a more serious note, I have been looking a little at this Mossberg rumor online and it appears 2 or perhaps 3 bolt rifles have had catastrophic failures. I need to look into it more before I draw any conclusions. Not that it has bearing on the discussion here.

[shinz]

Years ago now I was given a Ross 1910 bolt by the local police arms officer on one of my numerous forays into his office to get a "permit to procure " as was the rules back then. Having read the bumf about these I proceeded to strip it & reassmble it & proved to myself it could be reassembled wrongly & still appear whole & complete. Having only the bolt I never had the chance to try it in an action. I eventually passed the bolt onto a guy who had a couple of Rosses. Never thought to try the assembly thing again.
Re the Mossberg bolts, these rifles have a floating /separate bolt head similar to a Savage 110/116 etc. It is my understanding that the pin than locates the bolt head onto the bolt body sheared & when the bolt handle was turned down the locking lugs didn't turn into the locking recesses & allowed the bolt to blow back when the cartridge fired. In a similar model Mossberg I looked at, the bolt handle seems to do duty as a safety lug, turning into a sizable notch in the right receiver wall. I don't know though how strong the bolt handle is, whether a one piece construction or not & thus if it is enough to act as a safety lug given complete failure of the front locking lugs.
Steve

[gitano]

My understanding of the "Mossberg incident" was that the bolt was not completely closed, thereby removing the bolt handle as a third locking lug.
 
This whole "thing" about the pin that holds the bolt head on the bolt body being a "weak" point is why more emphasis should be placed on science in school. There is NO WAY the pressure generated by firing a round could transfer to that pin. Good grief!
 
The force of the gas pressure is translated to the bolt FACE via the base of the cartridge. The bolt lugs, on the bolt head, when the bolt is properly closed, engage the bearing surface of the receiver. The pin that holds the bolt head on the bolt body NEVER sees the chamber pressure, and never could. There's no way to 'get there from here' without passing through the bolt head and by-passing the lugs, somehow magically. The "Mossberg incident" was operator error. As usual. I can easily speculate on how this actually happened...
 
The shooter tried to close the bolt on an improperly sized cartridge - handload or factory doesn't matter. He chose to "crank" on the bolt handle. When he did, because the locking lugs didn't seat in their proper recess, he sheared the retaining pin. THE SHEARED PIN WOULD NOT have caused the observed failure, because the pin doesn't 'see' any pressure. The failure occured because the head never rotated into the lug recesses. Furthermore, if the bolt had been properly seated AT THE REAR, the sheared pin STILL wouldn't caused the failure.
 
I feel strongly, that this was operator error, not a design flaw. The only "design flaw" I might be willing to acknowledge is the one in which the pin in question is vulnerable to failure because of operator error.
 
Paul
 
By the way... The issue of a partially closed bolt being dangerous in a straight-pull action was dealt with excellently by the Swiss in their K-31. If the bolt is not forced home smartly, thereby completing the locking of the lugs, the rifle will NOT fire. And the amount of rotation that causes the 'no fire' situation is as little as 1/100th of a rotation. I speak from repeated personal experience here. This is one characteristic of the K-31 action that reduces its suitability as a hunting action. You have to 'slam' the bolt home in most cases to get it to 'cam over' properly. Doing so in the hunting field is "noisy", and can scare game. Doing so on the battle field is immaterial, and highly likely by the 'excited' soldier.
 
Paul

[shinz]

The shooter tried to close the bolt on an improperly sized cartridge - handload or factory doesn't matter. He chose to "crank" on the bolt handle. When he did, because the locking lugs didn't seat in their proper recess, he sheared the retaining pin. THE SHEARED PIN WOULD NOT have caused the observed failure, because the pin doesn't 'see' any pressure. The failure occured because the head never rotated into the lug recesses. Furthermore, if the bolt had been properly seated AT THE REAR, the sheared pin STILL wouldn't caused the failure.
 
I feel strongly, that this was operator error, not a design flaw. The only "design flaw" I might be willing to acknowledge is the one in which the pin in question is vulnerable to failure because of operator error.
 
Paul

I tend to concur with your conclusions on this one, there is certainly nothing  inherently wrong with a bolthead attached in this way as many hundreds of thousands of Savage rifles will testify. I've not heard of problems with them in this way. I wonder if Mossberg have upgraded their product in light of this, I reckon the design is basically OK, maybe a bit light in materials or specs.
Ooops, getting off topic a bit here:(
Steve.

[RustyBrass]

I have a Mossberg 500 pump shotgun, purchased it from original owner-in new condition. The gun would fire by itself when the pump was worked fast on the second shot !  Close the slide and "bang" it would go off.  It would also drop the firing pin if the safe was on, and the side of the gun was hit with my hand with a thud.  It was a very dangerous gun- an accident waiting to happen !   I disassembled the action, and filed the sear to obtain a higher trigger pull in pounds.  Now it is ok.  But as factory issued, the gun had such a hair trigger, any nudge or slight slam to the gun would drop the firing pin- and closing the slide hard would fire it.  Now it's safe, I can pound my fist on the side of the gun and it won't drop the firing pin, and only shoots when safe is off and trigger pulled.  The bad part is- I called Mossberg to report the issue, they didn't want to hear it, and said "well it is an old gun"- I wonder how many hundreds or thousands of those shotguns had that same hair trigger condition.

[Alboy]

My only resevation here is how well did you know the original owner and if they had tried to "smooth" the trigger?
 
Other than that I once bought a DAISY youth single shot bolt action 22RF for my 10 year opld boy to learn on. It would shoot on closing the bolt. It also went back to Daisy for a refund immediately and I bought him a Marlin clip fed bolt.

[gitano]

I wonder how many hundreds or thousands of those shotguns had that same hair trigger condition

Frankly, I doubt if 10 of them did. Slam-fires are a "big deal" to many people. If there had been "hundreds or thousands of them" you can bet yourt life there would have been a mandatory recal. I'm with Al, the "original owner" 'fiddled' with the arm, and when he realized he had "broken" it, he sold it.
 
Paul

[noel]

I knew a fellow(deceased)who was a sniper inthe canadian forces during the second world war.during training they refered to the ross rifles as killers at both ends.Bill explained to me that during wwI the snipers prefered the ross because the action could be moved so quietly.his assumption for the failures was two fold,lack of proper cleaning and due to slower quiet movement not fully getting the bolt locked.his advise to me was if I ever got my hands on a ross hang it on the wall and leave it there!Ireally liked old Bill.

[Brithunter]

Well I will still be after a Ross M10 or M1910 in 280 unless I can find a model 1907 Scotch Stalker built by Lancaster that is :D . As for the pinned bolt head, well Sportco (under Omark's ownership) used a pinned bolt head on their model 44 target rifle, and when I obtained one fo these was advised to check the pin for wear or signs of failure which I did and mine is fine. Will keep an eye on it when I clean the rifle but don't expect any problems with it.