Shown below is the THIRD ruined 500 I have personally handled. (I took these pictures).

In all three cases, the owner said it was a load of 17 grains of Titegroup (yes, seventeen in all three instances) and a cast bullet in the lower weight range for a .500 (370 grains or less).





Relevant comment I posted before:

Detonation?

Detonation is what allegedly can happen when too little of certain powders is used. I say allegedly because the powder companies insist that detonation is a myth, they have never been able to make it happen in the lab, and all purported examples of detonation are actually double charges or other human errors such as mistakenly using the wrong powder.

The theory (espoused by those that believe detonation actually happens) is that with too little powder and too much air space in the case, the powder sometimes doesn’t burn progressively, but rather the primer ignites every grain in the entire charge at the same time and it goes boom all at once, like dynamite or some other high explosive.
I have seen one .500 with its cylinder deformed and flattened against the top strap. The shooter was a very experienced reloader with hundreds of thousands of rounds experience. He said his load was a charge of Titegroup that was a few grains below the starting recommendation with a lightweight cast bullet. He believes he got detonation. Hodgdon says that’s impossible, and that he loaded a double charge. Smith & Wesson understandably would not replace the gun under warranty. Which was it, detonation or double charge?

In my opinion, there have been far too many reports of weird things happening when extra-light charges are used (most of them by cowboy action shooters) to dismiss them all as reloading error. Again, there’s a simple way to avoid any possibility of detonation ever happening to you: Stick with loads that fill most or all of the available case capacity. Want a lighter load? Use a slower powder. If the load still kicks too much, the .500 isn’t the gun for you.

__________________
JR, the 500 Specialist

Loading a lot of a very fast burning powder doesn't make much sense to me either. That was a double or tripple load.

How much room does 17gr of Titegroup take up in that big case?

I don't claim to feel qualified to comment on issues .500-related since I don't own one, but the advice you give is great for ANY caliber and for handloaders of all levels of experience. It may cost a few cents more per box of shells to select a powder accordingly, but the worth of your eyes, fingers, etc., far outweigh the extra expense, IMHO.

Been there. Done that. With Titegroup. And you now have the gun that I blew up John.

If (and I do mean if) the problem was all of the powder igniting at once due to there being so much case space and not a double charge, would filling the case with filler have prevented this from happening? But I agree, if there is even a chance of this happening, go to a slower burning powder and eliminate any risk. Definitely a sight that makes me cringe every time I see this occur.

How many rounds of that load were shot before the detonation? Were there any signs of excessive pressure? Were the rounds loaded on a progressive or a single stage press?

This is scary as all get out!

__________________
Have .44, will travel

Daaaaaaamn, that's scary. Having just purchased a 4" 500 and a Bone Collector on layaway along with purchasing everything I need to reload..... this does not make me feel very good abouit it. Gonna have to really pay attention to JR and whoever else will share their experience for us novice guys. I prefer learning from others mistakes vs my own

__________________
Jack C

I don't know. I was not present when this happened. I heard about it and contacted the man to examine the gun. After snapping a few pictures and asking the kind of questions you'd expect me to ask, he got very tight-lipped and packed up and left. I think he saw $$$ coming from somewhere and viewed me as an impediment to that goal.

Before that happened, he told me the left half of the cylinder struck his left cheek a glancing blow. If true, it had to be the smooth outside of the cylinder half, not the broken part. His cheek was unmarked and I took these photos the day after the incident.

__________________
JR, the 500 Specialist

Avoid all powders faster than 296 in your 500, with the exception of TrailBoss. If you use TB, make sure you use a load that is NOT compressed.

Stick to those rules and you'll have no problems. At least not dangerous ones like this...

__________________
JR, the 500 Specialist

My favorite mild load is 15 gr. of TG behind a 350 gr. lead bullet. Very pleasant to shoot but also lethal to about anything that walks.

__________________
Bob.
SWCA 1821

I think you mean faster.

Brain lock! Corrected...

__________________
JR, the 500 Specialist

I've seen two .500s (neither one mine) blow up with small-ish charges of Titegroup.

On the other hand, I've personally fired several 1000 rounds of .500 charged with 14-17.5 grains of Titegroup without a hiccup.

I don't doubt that there's something going on with this caliber/powder combination, but I do not believe that small-charge 'detonation' is the cause of the frequent kBs. Throw 17 grains of Titegroup in a .500 case and take a look at the powder level. Depending on the bullet, that much flake powder is going to fill about 50% of the available space. That's too much density for the classic 'flash-over' detonation to occur.

I have a theory as to why it happens - and keep in mind that this is only a theory - I have no hard experimental data to back up my hypothesis so take it for what it is: Some guy on the Internet spewing **** with nothing to back it up.

Titegroup is known as a non-position sensitive powder - good for small charges in big cases. It is widely known as a good powder to download, and lots of people use it that way. I use it for SpongeBob loads in .45 ACP all the time and it works beautifully in this application.

The kBs only seem to happen with the .500. I've never heard of a Titegroup-induced kB in an auto-loader.

I've fired 1000s of Titegroup .500 loads without incident using plated bullets that were taper crimped. Both times I've seen Titegroup-induced kBs, the offending rounds were roll-crimped. Since it is a .500, I think it's safe to assume that the roll crimps were probably on the strong side because that's the way that most people set their crimping dies when loading this beast.

My theory is this: When the powder ignites, the pressure builds to a slightly higher than normal level before the bullet even moves from the case (because of the roll crimp). The pressure then drops when the bullet starts to move, and then spikes again when the bullet encounters the rifling.

By the time the second spike hits, whatever additive the manufacturer had put in the powder to make it non-position sensitive has burned off, and the second spike causes much higher than normal pressure, which causes the revolver to come apart.

Both times I've seen it happen, the bullet never left the business end of the barrel. In one case it was lodged in the forcing cone, in the other we found it lying on the bench.

Did you find the bullet from the gun in the OP?

Interesting theory on pressure spikes.

No. He brought the gun to me in the condition shown in the photos. I don't know anything about where the bullet went. It didn't occur to me to ask if the bullet got out the muzzle or not.

__________________
JR, the 500 Specialist

All of the speculation about exotic and impossible to duplicate physics ignores the most likely cause of an event like this:

****A multiple charge of this fast powder****

The most experienced reloaders and scientists at the powder companies have been unable to reliably duplicate the "detonation" phenomena after thousands of tests! They wanted to understand how it happens in order to prevent these events and the potential lawsuits that follow.

Does it happen? Perhaps, although usually with SLOWER powders, not those like Titegroup.

What I am saying is that we should not jump to a rare, unverifiable phenomenon first as an explanation when a revolver fails with a handload, especially one loaded with a fast powder.

When somebody can VERIFY the load in a cartridge (multiple observers) and then that cartridge causes a sound revolver to explode then we can talk.

Right now, the gun owner/reloader has no incentive to admit a possible error...of course he will say "Its not my fault-it was a detonation, yeah, that's the ticket!"

Bob

Well, yes, but thousands of tests by the powder companies pale in comparison to the hundreds of millions of "tests" conducted by shooters. Hence my statement:

"In my opinion, there have been far too many reports of weird things happening when extra-light charges are used (most of them by cowboy action shooters) to dismiss them all as reloading error. Again, there’s a simple way to avoid any possibility of detonation ever happening to you: Stick with loads that fill most or all of the available case capacity. Want a lighter load? Use a slower powder."

Although I didn't say it, loading this way also makes double charges impossible. And yes, I think a double charge is the LIKELIEST explanation for this event, but I am not willing to say it is the ONLY explanation.

__________________
JR, the 500 Specialist

A couple things here-

1ST- Welcome to the forum!

2ND- This is a very good hypothesis IMO, and one I was going to suggest, but now I see there's no need to.

Exactly right John.

I think far too many guys are buying these guns hoping they can handle them, but once they find out that they really do kick, they want (read need) to download them. While mild loads are more enjoyable for most people, that's not what the gun or case was designed for. Using powders more appropriate for this size case will eliminate any potential double charges, and most likely all these KB's too.

JMO YMMV

I'm sure there all sorts of arm-chair munitions expert opinions on forums that delve into the mysterious "detonation", but the fact remains that reloading screwups are the only PROVEN way to blow-up a revolver.

And Titegroup is the absolutely worst powder imaginable for large, dark, cartridge casings. And it has a high nitro content which increases temp, which vaporizes more lead off the base of cast bullets and makes that lead available to you to breathe. Why guys think they're saving money by using Titegroup is beyond me.

Let me be clear: double-charges blow up revolvers and Titegroup is the easiest powder I've used to create a double charge. And the Dillon 550 is a proven double-maker.

Now you can go back to your detonation theories

Interesting discussion, and I never knew there was a problem with coboy action shooters either.

Anyway, if you're going to do research on the cause of the kabooms, you should collect data on what type of reloading techniques and equipment were used too. We might all benefit from this information.

I actually am a Munitions expert...30 + years in the field. Mostly with military ammo and other ordnance but some with civilian stuff as well. No experience with the .500.

Hence the handle...Bomberman.

__________________
Have .44, will travel

I do not own a .500. But looking at the photo I thought I noticed something unusual in the empty brass that is laying alongside the revolver. Not the exploded pieces, but the intact empties. Doesn't a .500 case groove have a taper on the side toward the case mouth? Those in the photo look like they are very sharp. Like I said, I'm not personally familiar with this round, but looking at the case specs and drawings on line, they look different at the case head groove than those in the photo. This all may be optics and I will readily admit to ignorance on this. Just throwing it out as I'm curious about this incident because I do load with Titegroup in other calibers.

Listen, I'm no expert but I defer to them. They happen to work for powder companies or some other munitions organization in my opinion.

All this is just a sign of the times: "Blame it on someone else." Common for today.

But, on the subject of Titegroup, I have used only one pound of it and will not go back to it again, ever, for any caliber, period. If 2.7gr of Bullseye gave you an upset stomach when you loaded those 148gr 38spl wadcutters, you would probably lose your lunch if you saw how little Titegroup 2.7gr was in that case.

Didn't folks claim that that fast powder caused blowups then too? Yeah. Truth be told though, there was a "pop" that was missed and followed by a BANG. Just surmising and, I feel mine summations have as much validity as other's.

No, this was a result of loading practices rather than the phantom combustion theory.

p.s. I did use Titegroup in the 500 for a short time. It was in a Handi-Rifle though, not a handgun. Really, I wouldn't even use that powder now in 380! I guess I already said that though!


My advice to the shooter, man up.

Regardless of the likelihood or not of this powder (or any other) detonating in the .500 case, why not make a .500 Special or Short by trimming the case to the point there is no room for a double charge and champhering it?

__________________
and what his trumpet saith

Might be a good idea for someone who doesn't have enough to do...

And I think you might end up with a VERY short case, to the point where reaming would be required.

__________________
JR, the 500 Specialist

The .500 GAP...I think they are already working on it. haha




Titegroup takes up less space than Bullseye?! Geezus.

I may be wrong, but I believe that detonation has been duplicated in the lab. It was duplicated 40 or 50 years ago by Army ordinance technicians doing expermental research on light loads in fixed cannon ammo.

I am sure that the ammo and powder companies have not been able to duplicate or show that light loads may rarely cause detonation. If they were to show that it happens, they would be liable for negligence, or worse, for publishing data using light loads all these years. Its easier to just blame it on reloader error and double/triple charges.

BTW, it is easy enough to google detonation and find that there is quite a bit of evidence that supports it (including U.S. Army research). Very light loads of fast powder, and reduced loads of some slow powders. Even the loading manuals caution about not reducing loads with some of the slower powders, they just don't tell you why in any great detail.

WoW!
Since gun companies are usually unwilling to talk to somebody who experienced a "Kaboom" in one of their creations while using hand loads, I don't know who this guy thinks he might be able to collect some $$$ from...?

Secondly, I found this on the net and I think it is possibly useful for the analysis here:
Reloading Speeds vs. Powder Location in Case Page

Granted, the above comparisons were done with much slower powder in .45Colt caliber, but I think this guy is on to something...

Harrison wrote:

Experiments done on detonation in cannon are not applicable to small arms. The research talks about shock wave propagation and harmonic effects that are thought to be negligible or non-existent in small arms. .

The subject of detonation is controversial in that it is like Bigfoot-many people say they have seen it, but nobody can prove it. And certainly, nobody can make it happen on demand with ANY load of powder in ANY small arms cartridge.

Think about it. In the case posted by the OP, the round that blew up the gun was not the first one like it fired (see the empties in the picture). What changed? What made the one that blew different from the others? I do not believe in voo doo or random physics effects. If all the rounds were the same, why did the others not "detonate" ,too?

The idea that the powder companies want to not understand this so as to dodge liability is something that I have not heard before. I guess that would make the first independent lab that can demonstrate detonation in small arms very wealthy from the leverage they would have over the entire industry.

Bob

Absolutely!

Total BS. This is why these old-wives tales keep circulating around and around on forums. Absolute total BS. I wish there was a BS icon.

I've never used TG, obvious, by my question...

I tested once, I think I got 4 full (2.7gr) charges of bullseye in a 38.spl case and the fifth one spilled over. It makes me nervous, but its so cheap and wonderfully accurate I'll keep loading it. Don't think TiteGroup will find its way into my loading room though.

I agree that some of these must be reloading errors, but there are too many kBs in this caliber - with this particular powder only - by experienced reloaders - to all be reloading errors. Both of the ones I've seen happened with cartridges reloaded on auto-indexing machines, where the chances of an accidental double charge are slim.

Those of you that are suggesting that this is a detonation caused by a small charge of fast burning powder....

Please, before you embarrass yourselves, dump 17 grains of Titegroup into a .500 case and take a look at how much space it takes up, then decide if it really is a 'tiny' or even 'small' charge. OK?

Way back, I used a 1# can of Titegroup, shot most of it in my .45 auto. I was not impressed. It burned really hot (in temperature). My gun would actually get hot shooting just target loads. Leading was bad in my .38 shooting HBWC from it melting the bullets.

I am highly skeptical of the detonation theory. I'm no expert, but this is the way I think about it: pressure is caused by gas. Gas is produced by burning powder. The amount of gas produced is directly proportional to the amount of powder burned. A small charge of powder isn't going to produce enough gas to kaboom the gun.

A double charge is far more likely.

Really? Name 5.

In reality there are a small number of reloading caused KABOOMS that get circulated around and around in various forums.

I'm new to reloading but started using Titegroup for my .45's on the advice of the shop that sold me the Dillon 650. It meters consistently and provides me with good results. I now use it for .38's and 9 mm as well. It's easy to work with and shoots good.
The Hodgdon web site clearly shows the amount of powder to use for various calibers including the .500. Are people saying that Hodgdon continues to publish data for a known defective load?!
As experienced as some of the Forumites may be, (and Gentlemen I bow to your years as well as learn daily from you) that experience simply cannot equal the combined expertise of Hodgdon, IMR and Winchester.

I buy Titegroup by the 4 pound jug and will continue to do so. Just my dos centavos ...

Can’t add anything significant to this discussion but back in the day when I used a Starr progressive loader, I would occasionally throw a double powder charge when my primer tube ran dry and I had my head up my arse – a double charge of bullseye in a 45ACP case got your attention in a 1911 set up for bullseye shooting. I’ve been around a lot of double powder charges that were fired at the range over the years that were made on a progressive reloader (99% were made by others) – just lucky all were 38’s & 45’s.

Using AA1680 in the 500 could cause someone a problem if they use less than the recommended start amount of powder, as AA1680 in the 500 should be compressed per advice from Johan Loubser, who is/was AA’s Ballistician. I almost learned the hard way, as I backed off the starting load in an effort to reduce the felt recoil on 500 grain bullets. I got several squibs. Had one that never made a sound, as only the primer went off and burned an extremely small amount of powder causing just enough pressure for the bullet to clear the cylinder - stopping in the forcing cone area. I heard nothing due to my hearing protection. I thought I had a bad primer and after a few seconds opened the cylinder and saw the mess. Had I not checked, maybe I could have had one of those “modified” 500’s.

I've never used Titegroup, never even seen any of it in person, so how does 17 grains of it in a .500 S&W case compare to 5 gr. of Bullseye in a .303 British case?

I do a lot of light loads and have never had a problem of any kind. One of the older books (as in not "factory" related) I have mentions the reason that many reloading manuals don't list reduced load data is because of the lack of interest from shooters. They want everything magnumized! By the way, Lyman lists reduced loads for the .500 using Unique, which has been used for reduced loads for many years in rifle cases, even at lower charges. So where did this idea of using Titegroup come from?

Yes, detonation is a theory, but it is a credible one. It is based on the same principle that breaking up large powder granules changes the burning characteristics by creating more surface area. It is also an old theory because nobody has proven, or disproven, it without doubt.

I do have my own theory about the rise in kabooms, and I'm not saying that detonation isn't possible, just that it could be more than one thing. The rising cost of ammunition and the increasing popularity of shooting sports among people that would have never fired a shot otherwise has driven people to reload that really don't have their heart, or brain, in it. Even long time, epert reloaders can divert their attention long enough to cause a problem.

So how many .500s have been blown up by the reduced load of Titegroup?

That about sums it up in my way of thinking about this situation.

I tried Titegroup in 45acp and yes, it burns a lot hotter than normal even in that low pressure caliber. I'll never shoot any of it again.

I shoot and reload the 500 a lot, but only in a single shot Handi Rifle. Never shot the caliber in a revolver. The 500 is a very easy and safe caliber to reload with the appropriate powders. What very few reduced loads I've ever loaded up, I've used Power Pistol powder. It's very versatile and forgiving.

I'm no expert either, but with smokeless powders you have to figure in the time factor too, sort of like "work". But Titegroup isn't a slow burning powder so I'm hesitant to even think detonation in this case. I've been turning away from Hodgdon powders more and more for various reasons and I'm not going to exclude them from any fault, but I too am leaning toward loader error for now. And it might even be loader equipment related, we need more facts.

I have personally seen three (after the fact--I wasn't there for the KBs) and have heard of two more. I have heard of NO .500 KBs with ANY OTHER powder.

__________________
JR, the 500 Specialist

I have had very good results with Titegroup in 38 Special, 44 Special and 45 Colt. My experience is that this is a superior powder for these older low pressure cartridges. In the case of the 45 Colt, I get velocity spreads of less than 15 fps. This tells me that this powder is working very well in this large LOW PRESSURE case. I also use Titegroup for my 148gr. HBWC target loads for my model 14 bullseye gun. My bullets don't "melt" and the barrel doesn't get any hotter than usual. The only thing that happens is bullets landing VERY CLOSE to one another. For you reloaders that don't take the time to eyeball your cases to make sure that you haven't dropped a double charge of fast burning powder.........all I have to say to you, is that you have just failed reloading 101. Not to mention the fact that the bad result came from a reloader that admits to using a less than recommended starting load. Did it occur to anyone that those published starting loads ought to be followed just as closely as the maximum loads????........Sheeesh......apparently not.

I have tried Titegroup in other apps(357Mag and 10mm), and I got lackluster results. That tells me that this powder is better suited for lower pressure cartridges. While I have no experience reloading for the 500Mag, I do know that this is a 60,000 psi round. I'm thinking you 500Mag folks ought to stick to slower burning powders. You might want to observe published load data so nobody gets hurt!

tdan wrote:
I am not sure where the load data stated by the OP came from. For example, Hodgdon lists 16gr and 14gr of Titegroup as starting loads for 370gr CBP LGC and 375gr Barnes bullets respectively.

Its hard to make a definitive assessment without identifying the actual bullets that were used, but 17gr of Titegroup with a 370gr bullet does not seem to be an undercharge.

Bob

WOW this is an eye opener...What happend to the shooter? Does he have a hand left?

When I started to reload my 500, leadhead suggested to only use h110, he casts the bullets for corbon so at his advice that is what I stuck with. I have shot several thousand rounds of 500 grain hard cast and had zero issues.

Last year there was an article of how a light powder charge/ or a charge of powder that does not fill the case will cause a variance in accuracy depending on where the powder is in the case at the point of ignition. They didnt call it detination in the story..

The reason why I posted that previous comparison that somebody did w/.45Colt was to show how small loads with even a slower powder like Unique had some pretty significant velocity spreads and velocity standard deviations when the powder was situated either right on top of the flash-hole or when it was situated at the back of the projectile/far away from the ignition source. If you look at what that guy discovered, he was able to show that based upon powder position in the case, he experienced @15% to almost 20% reduction in velocity in some cases (and higher extreme vel. spreads) with the same powder charge/primer combination.

For this particular .500 Kaboom, I have a feeling that the same issue that was shown with the Unique in the .45Colt cartridge could have resulted in a .500 projo getting stuck in the bore, the shooter was not aware of this dangerous situation, and the next round fired could have caused the actual Kaboom to happen.

BUT, on the detonation issue, I think Jellybean DOES make some very valid points when he talks about powder grain surface area variations due to individual propellant grain fracturing/crushing to significantly increase the surface area of a load and thus dramatically change burn characteristics. For small-grain ball or even flake type powders, one would think this would not be too much of an issue "normally". But with my own experience as a match .50BMG reloader/shooter, I can tell you that this is a HUGE issue for larger grain propellants.

Whether any of you know it or not, the faster burning smokeless powders (the tests I read about were done with Bullseye in particular) WILL detonate with surprising brisance in the right situations. The usual determinant factor in getting them to actually detonate is having enough propellant exposed to the initiator (tests were done with a #8 cap) so that the detonation wave will propogate completely throughout the propellant.
One would think that with some of the extremely small loads which have been reported to have "detonated" instead of "burned" that this "perfect detonation wave" could not be possible, but I have always wondered if a "perfect" situation could ever accidentally arise where an individual load was comprised of a large portion of "crushed" individual powder kernals (so individual broken-kernals have even less space between them than normal; which makes it easier for the det.-wave to transfer between them), and when this reduced-load gets sealed inside a relatively significantly sized and completely enclosed space like a reduced-load cartridge case is, it could allow for a perfect "harmonic" of sorts to be caused when the primer fires and thus create a more efficient "detonation wave" in the propellant rather than the slower/preferred "burn/ignition"...?
It's all theory when it comes to all of this coming together inside a cartridge case of course, but the faster smokeless propellants DO detonate quite nicely when the situation is right... The report I read said that Bullseye was just about equivalent to the detonation speed of TNT, which is "military grade" explosives!

First and foremost, PJ, welcome to the forum. Glad to have you!

As to one point in your post, Jellybean making good points, we have known he has that capability for a few years now!
(Sometimes I hate it when he does! (JK))

This is another reason I don't like Titegroup. Although, according to Hodgdon, 'cause I asked this question of their technical staff, it is supposed to be position insensitive. They compared it to Bullseye, another powder that would NEVER make it into the 500 from my reloading bench, and stated that it was exceptionally position sensitive.

The answer to this problem though is found in one of the cardinal rules of reloading, powder selection per ammunition type. Large volume cases REQUIRE a decent case fill to keep the "powder at the front of the case" from ever happening. Hence, slower powders, higher volume per load, more case fill.

The more we think we learn and experiment with new things the more we end up coming right back to what we have always known. If we are going to build a future in the hobby of reloading we must build on past knowledge. Throwing the "knowns" to the winds and having a case almost void of powder is silly.

Case in point: Elmer; building his bullets for the 44Spl. Did he make his bullets more front heavy so he could have empty space in the case? Um, no, he filled that extra void with powder. A slower burning powder that kept the case full.

FWIW

Again, PJ, welcome.

While I can't comment on the .500 problem with any authority I can tell you that I use Titegroup in my model 945. I have fired many thousands of shots with it without a problem. I find it a very accuraye loading using just 4.4 grains under a 230 grain FMJ round. I will continue to use it in this caliber without any worry whatsoever. I used it in .40 caliber but have gone to AA#5 as i seem to get better accuracy with it.

Gee thanks Skip, now I'm getting a little misty.

Again, I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I don't see it that way. If a bullet were stuck in the barrel there should be more damage to the barrel, either blown up or at least a bulge. Looking at the photos you can see a bulge in the chamber that blew and the corresponding bend in the stop strap. I would guess there was too much fast burning powder and the spike in the pressure curve was more than the gun could handle.

PJS50, can you give me a source or link to the reports you read about the fast powders detonating? You can never have too much information. Welcome to the forum, and please excuse my lack of manners.

I actually did quite a bit of reading on the subject when I started loading because I wanted to put light .38 loads in .357 cases & was cautioned about it.

Detonation is supposedly a danger in bottleneck rifle cartridges when a light charge of slow powder was used and the flame spread over the top of the charge rather than burning back to front. As mentioned, it hasn't really been nailed down as a cause of KB in straight walled pistol cartridges.

I'm very comfortable light loading with fast powder like Bullseye.

The risk with faster powder is the double or triple charge, or loading those Big Dog magnums with a double digit dose of Bullseye instead of 2400.