Weimar
US Veteran
and he's had it in his safe for 40 yrs - wow 
Exploding Colt Revolvers
- Thread starter CW4 Dennis
- Start date
I have a Colt Agent I bought I believe in the mid 80s I have always thought
that it was not supposed to be used with +P ammo. I don't remember where I got that idea from but I buy .38 spl for it and +P for my handguns marked for +P.
The article shown in post #19 mentions that it is OK to shoot +P ammo in the Colt Agent, I'm gonna pass on that.
Steve W
that it was not supposed to be used with +P ammo. I don't remember where I got that idea from but I buy .38 spl for it and +P for my handguns marked for +P.
The article shown in post #19 mentions that it is OK to shoot +P ammo in the Colt Agent, I'm gonna pass on that.
Steve W
Texas Star
US Veteran
In the G&A column cited, Dr. Libourel was quoting Colt on the suitability of using Plus P, and that answer has appeared elsewhere.
S&W DID NOT advise Plus P for their Airweight revolvers.
I wish we knew the details of this case. At the least, we need to know the ammo type and brand.
That said, I had a customer service problem with Colt in the 1980's and was treated in an unsatisfactory manner, just brushed off. The issue was that a Diamondback did not have enough range of adjustment in the rear sight to bring bullets on target. The Colt rep told me to just use Kentucky windage. I didn't like her attitude and have not recommended Colt since. Most of their revolvers also have a tendency to go out of time far sooner than do Ruger or S&W arms. They should have fixed that in the 1920's!
But Colt has a reputation for superior metallurgy. Jan Stevenson and other gun authorities have so stated, and I believe it. Something very odd is going on here.
Again, what ammo was used and if it is an ammo flaw, why is that cylinder intact? I've never seen a report of a blown gun where ammo was at fault that didn't have a damaged cylinder.
S&W DID NOT advise Plus P for their Airweight revolvers.
I wish we knew the details of this case. At the least, we need to know the ammo type and brand.
That said, I had a customer service problem with Colt in the 1980's and was treated in an unsatisfactory manner, just brushed off. The issue was that a Diamondback did not have enough range of adjustment in the rear sight to bring bullets on target. The Colt rep told me to just use Kentucky windage. I didn't like her attitude and have not recommended Colt since. Most of their revolvers also have a tendency to go out of time far sooner than do Ruger or S&W arms. They should have fixed that in the 1920's!
But Colt has a reputation for superior metallurgy. Jan Stevenson and other gun authorities have so stated, and I believe it. Something very odd is going on here.
Again, what ammo was used and if it is an ammo flaw, why is that cylinder intact? I've never seen a report of a blown gun where ammo was at fault that didn't have a damaged cylinder.
Last edited:
pittpa
Member
Not if you're Irish. My biggest problem is remembering who I'm holding a grudge against.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
IIRC, the Colt instruction manual that came with any of the post 1972 Detective Spec & variations (Cobra being one of them) stated in the manual that they were all safe for +P 38sp ammo.
The alloy frame variations were to be inspected by a 'trained gunsmith' every 1000rds,, the steel frame versions every 3000rds.
Problem here that I see is the amt of time passed since the incident. There should have been some other more direct expedient contact made at the time,,,,Colt auth repair center, letter from a lawyer, ect.
When they ignore you, you can't just continue to do the same thing and then complain that they're ignoring you. You have to make some noise.
(..also,,what Colt part is that threaded bolt in the pic lying horizontal just below the ejector rod & crane?)
The alloy frame variations were to be inspected by a 'trained gunsmith' every 1000rds,, the steel frame versions every 3000rds.
Problem here that I see is the amt of time passed since the incident. There should have been some other more direct expedient contact made at the time,,,,Colt auth repair center, letter from a lawyer, ect.
When they ignore you, you can't just continue to do the same thing and then complain that they're ignoring you. You have to make some noise.
(..also,,what Colt part is that threaded bolt in the pic lying horizontal just below the ejector rod & crane?)
DWalt
Member
I too would suspect the cause was a squib load leaving a bullet in the barrel, followed by firing a full load. I do note that the cylinder did not fail. Regardless of why the frame failure occurred, this is one reason I don't want ANYONE's alloy frame revolvers. I have never trusted them, and always pass them by. Never owned one, never will.
jag312
Member
I don't know why the cylinder held together while the rest of the revolver came apart, but I have seen something similar. Years ago I had a case where a young man with a long criminal career got into a shoot out with the police. The suspect was armed with a Colt New Army & Navy revolver made around 1895. It was designed for the low pressure black powder .38 Long Colt cartridge. He managed to insert .38 Super +P cartridges in the chambers. When he fired that gun, the barrel split but the cylinder showed no damage, deformation, or swelling. Why did the barrel split and the cylinder held together? I have no idea. Sometimes, strange things happen. In case anyone is interested, the suspect in my case died with a damaged Colt revolver in one hand and a sawed-off shotgun in the other.
Even in a non +P gun.......
Even in a non +P gun would shooting +P rounds wouldn't cause such complete destruction. I would that say there were flaws in the gun, but not in every place. That thing is SHATTERED. Colt makes strong guns and I would suspect that this was caused by either a double or triple charge of fast powder or a squib as someone else mentioned. What kind of ammo were you using? I believe that you should have, or Colt should have directed you to show this to the ammo manufacturer. I don't know how an ammo company could deny that that is a catastrophic problem with the ammo. Do you remember what ammo this was? I really don't think Colt would make a gun out of clay but I think they really dropped the ball when they didn't put it on the ammunition. Do you still have the ammo that did this?
Here's a scenario. The powder loading machine skipped one round and double charged the next. Naturally the squib sticks a bullet in the barrel and right behind it is a too heavy charge. Ammo makers have all kinds of safety sensors in place but if there was a stoppage or something that screwed the line up really bad, this could happen.
Even in a non +P gun would shooting +P rounds wouldn't cause such complete destruction. I would that say there were flaws in the gun, but not in every place. That thing is SHATTERED. Colt makes strong guns and I would suspect that this was caused by either a double or triple charge of fast powder or a squib as someone else mentioned. What kind of ammo were you using? I believe that you should have, or Colt should have directed you to show this to the ammo manufacturer. I don't know how an ammo company could deny that that is a catastrophic problem with the ammo. Do you remember what ammo this was? I really don't think Colt would make a gun out of clay but I think they really dropped the ball when they didn't put it on the ammunition. Do you still have the ammo that did this?
Here's a scenario. The powder loading machine skipped one round and double charged the next. Naturally the squib sticks a bullet in the barrel and right behind it is a too heavy charge. Ammo makers have all kinds of safety sensors in place but if there was a stoppage or something that screwed the line up really bad, this could happen.
Last edited:
scooter123
Member
I'm very curious about the manufacturer of the "+P ammunition" used in this incident and their response.
Based on a Wikipedia article the +P was originally implemented in 1972, just 4 years prior to the date given for this Kaboom. In addition in the 38 Special what is today called +P is actually the prior pressure standard for commercial 38 special ammunition. Because in 1972 when the +P labeling was introduced it was because the manufacturers had reduced the pressure of the 38 special ammunitions they were producing to keep the Peak Pressures below the listed maximum for the caliber using new electronically based continuous pressure testing methods. Basically the pressure was reduced because the old Copper Crusher methods couldn't pick up these short peaks in pressure. Because of this reduction in pressure for the 38 special the resulting velocities were also reduced so +P was brought out to "restore" the performance that was available prior to the change in pressure testing methods.
My thinking is that this Kaboom wasn't a failure on Colt's part but a failure on the part of hte ammunition manufacturer. I also suspect that this wasn't a Double Charge, I think this was probably a Triple Charge or perhaps something even higher. In plain truth it was a case that was completely filled with a very fast burning powder which resulted in a massively over pressure charge. BTW, I am a reloader and generally avoid the "fast" powders specifically due to the risk of a massive over charge because slow powders require a much larger volume of powder to produce the same pressure as a much smaller charge of "fast" powder.
Based on a Wikipedia article the +P was originally implemented in 1972, just 4 years prior to the date given for this Kaboom. In addition in the 38 Special what is today called +P is actually the prior pressure standard for commercial 38 special ammunition. Because in 1972 when the +P labeling was introduced it was because the manufacturers had reduced the pressure of the 38 special ammunitions they were producing to keep the Peak Pressures below the listed maximum for the caliber using new electronically based continuous pressure testing methods. Basically the pressure was reduced because the old Copper Crusher methods couldn't pick up these short peaks in pressure. Because of this reduction in pressure for the 38 special the resulting velocities were also reduced so +P was brought out to "restore" the performance that was available prior to the change in pressure testing methods.
My thinking is that this Kaboom wasn't a failure on Colt's part but a failure on the part of hte ammunition manufacturer. I also suspect that this wasn't a Double Charge, I think this was probably a Triple Charge or perhaps something even higher. In plain truth it was a case that was completely filled with a very fast burning powder which resulted in a massively over pressure charge. BTW, I am a reloader and generally avoid the "fast" powders specifically due to the risk of a massive over charge because slow powders require a much larger volume of powder to produce the same pressure as a much smaller charge of "fast" powder.
Also last post, still.
I have Colt's Agent, and I too read Jan Libourel's article, but I have never
used +P in my Colt. Although Jan was a very good writer, I don't believe
everything I read in a gun magazine. My intuition told me not to use
+P in the old Colt. I believe I could find quotes in articles by most all
of our leading gun magazine writers where they were wrong. It's
kinda like believing everything we read on the internet.
used +P in my Colt. Although Jan was a very good writer, I don't believe
everything I read in a gun magazine. My intuition told me not to use
+P in the old Colt. I believe I could find quotes in articles by most all
of our leading gun magazine writers where they were wrong. It's
kinda like believing everything we read on the internet.
walkin' trails
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,375
- Reaction score
- 826
Seems like Colt has changed ownership and been involved in bankruptcy proceedings one or more times in the past 40 years, so is the Colt of today even remotely the same corporate entity when the OP's revolver was manufactured.
I never owned a Colt revolver that came with a box or manual ( all were bought used), so I can't attest to what Colt printed about the use of +P, but recall very clearly from the 70s and 80s that it was considered unwise to shoot +P in any alloy revolver. It seems that it hasn't been all that long that S&W blessed the use of higher pressure ammo in their alloy Js.
I recall armorers from my home town PD who had toured the S&W factory saying how S&W applied special heat treating to their magnum-chambered revolvers while Colt didn't. I don't know the validity of that, but the same could probably be applied to the 686 vs GP100 debates of today. I don't think that a box or two of +Ps would blow up a Colt alloy D- frame, but a bad round or two would seriously damage any gun it was fired through. Due to the fact that the Colts are no longer manufactured and values are at least double or more of their original retail value, I would not be inclined to abuse them with hotter loads.
The one thing that the OP might consider doing is having an independent entity test the remains of the gun to see if there were any metallurgy defects. I still doubt Colt of today would be able to do much about it, as they certainly wouldn't be able to furnish a replacement Cobra (unless they've been sitting on a stash of them in the basement).
I never owned a Colt revolver that came with a box or manual ( all were bought used), so I can't attest to what Colt printed about the use of +P, but recall very clearly from the 70s and 80s that it was considered unwise to shoot +P in any alloy revolver. It seems that it hasn't been all that long that S&W blessed the use of higher pressure ammo in their alloy Js.
I recall armorers from my home town PD who had toured the S&W factory saying how S&W applied special heat treating to their magnum-chambered revolvers while Colt didn't. I don't know the validity of that, but the same could probably be applied to the 686 vs GP100 debates of today. I don't think that a box or two of +Ps would blow up a Colt alloy D- frame, but a bad round or two would seriously damage any gun it was fired through. Due to the fact that the Colts are no longer manufactured and values are at least double or more of their original retail value, I would not be inclined to abuse them with hotter loads.
The one thing that the OP might consider doing is having an independent entity test the remains of the gun to see if there were any metallurgy defects. I still doubt Colt of today would be able to do much about it, as they certainly wouldn't be able to furnish a replacement Cobra (unless they've been sitting on a stash of them in the basement).
Model25Man
US Veteran
As I remember(which is not as easy as it once was) the 38+P round was introduced in the early to mid 70s, and was intended for medium frame and larger revolvers. I believe that at that time the only Colt D frames that were considered safe enough to shoot +Ps in were the Diamondback, and currently manufactured Police Positives. From the pics posted it appears the event that blew that revolver apart happened at/in the forcing cone, maybe a squib, slightly oversized bullet, stretched frame, incorrect cylinder timing, etc.
model25man
retired gunsmith
model25man
retired gunsmith
OP
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2016
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 3
Bad Colt
To give more explanation. I bought this Colt Cobra new in 1976 and with it I bought a box of +P.38 Specials under the advice of the Gun Store owner. This Colt exploded in my hand before I could finish the box of ammo. I took it back to the dealer who sold it to me and they told me to send it back to the Colt factory.
Then (40) years ago, I did sent it to the Colt factory. Colt examined it by cutting the barrel in half and determined that it was not a squib but 'too excessive amount of pressure'. Colt took no responsibility nor blame for the gun then. They returned the gun to me and I have been saving it ever since.
What sparked my interest, which convinced me my Colt Cobra was at fault, was the article I read a few week ago in Guns & Ammo, dated Feb 1990, reading: "ALL Colt DA .38 Special revolvers were strong enough to handle +P's". So, for a second time, 40 years later, I contacted Colt last week and got a verbal 'sorry we can not help you' response.
I have been shooting handguns and rifles for over 50 years (four years serving on the Army Pistol Expert team after I returned from Vietnam), my experience tells me what a squib is and not to fire another round. I have over 40 Smith and Wesson revolvers all of which are strong, reliable and all are great guns. Smith & Wesson also has a great customer service program.
I was disappointed in Colt for brushing me off so nonchalantly, because this gun did put me in harms way, and Colt acts as if it was nothing to be concerned about.
That is why I opened this forum discussion. Not to get anything other than informing others of how bad Colts' attitude toward something as serous as a gun exploding in someone's (my) hand whether by using heavy loads, or by having poor communications, or just maybe their product was faulty. The fact is, the gun exploded in my hand and Colt just doesn't care!
Bottom line, this Colt exploded in my hand 40 years ago, Colt did nothing, last week I tried to explain to them again the gun was at fault, and Cold did nothing! I'm sorry for all you Colt owners, good luck if you need any warranty work.
To give more explanation. I bought this Colt Cobra new in 1976 and with it I bought a box of +P.38 Specials under the advice of the Gun Store owner. This Colt exploded in my hand before I could finish the box of ammo. I took it back to the dealer who sold it to me and they told me to send it back to the Colt factory.
Then (40) years ago, I did sent it to the Colt factory. Colt examined it by cutting the barrel in half and determined that it was not a squib but 'too excessive amount of pressure'. Colt took no responsibility nor blame for the gun then. They returned the gun to me and I have been saving it ever since.
What sparked my interest, which convinced me my Colt Cobra was at fault, was the article I read a few week ago in Guns & Ammo, dated Feb 1990, reading: "ALL Colt DA .38 Special revolvers were strong enough to handle +P's". So, for a second time, 40 years later, I contacted Colt last week and got a verbal 'sorry we can not help you' response.
I have been shooting handguns and rifles for over 50 years (four years serving on the Army Pistol Expert team after I returned from Vietnam), my experience tells me what a squib is and not to fire another round. I have over 40 Smith and Wesson revolvers all of which are strong, reliable and all are great guns. Smith & Wesson also has a great customer service program.
I was disappointed in Colt for brushing me off so nonchalantly, because this gun did put me in harms way, and Colt acts as if it was nothing to be concerned about.
That is why I opened this forum discussion. Not to get anything other than informing others of how bad Colts' attitude toward something as serous as a gun exploding in someone's (my) hand whether by using heavy loads, or by having poor communications, or just maybe their product was faulty. The fact is, the gun exploded in my hand and Colt just doesn't care!
Bottom line, this Colt exploded in my hand 40 years ago, Colt did nothing, last week I tried to explain to them again the gun was at fault, and Cold did nothing! I'm sorry for all you Colt owners, good luck if you need any warranty work.
Here's a link to a Colt Owners Manual for the D frame revolvers. Includes the Cobra of course.
The manual is dated 2002 unfortunately but is the only one I can find for the post 72 models.
The wording regarding the use of +P 38Special in the Aluminum frame guns (Cobra and Agent) is the same as earlier print I remember.
Limited use of +P 38Spec is OK in the alloy frame Cobra (and Agent).
The */note states having the alloy gun inspected every 1000rds ,,steel frame guns every 2000 to 3000rds .
(??...Do they mean 1000rds of +P,,or every 1000 rd count of 38special no matter the type?)
http://stevespages.com/pdf/colt_det...ack,_police_positive,_agent,_cobra,_viper.pdf
Another point..could the ammo used in the OP's revolver possibly have been +P+,,,instead of +P.
Could that have made such a significant difference to possibly cause the damage shown?
The manual is dated 2002 unfortunately but is the only one I can find for the post 72 models.
The wording regarding the use of +P 38Special in the Aluminum frame guns (Cobra and Agent) is the same as earlier print I remember.
Limited use of +P 38Spec is OK in the alloy frame Cobra (and Agent).
The */note states having the alloy gun inspected every 1000rds ,,steel frame guns every 2000 to 3000rds .
(??...Do they mean 1000rds of +P,,or every 1000 rd count of 38special no matter the type?)
http://stevespages.com/pdf/colt_det...ack,_police_positive,_agent,_cobra,_viper.pdf
Another point..could the ammo used in the OP's revolver possibly have been +P+,,,instead of +P.
Could that have made such a significant difference to possibly cause the damage shown?
Last edited:
Lee's Landing Billy
Member
40 years ago, huh?..........Sorry, I got nothin'.
After reading all this I decided to put my 2 cents in. The gun exploded, that is not in doubt. Why is the question and it would affect the outcome.
With that explosion in mind was your hand damaged, did you get sprayed with shrapnel? If you were personally hurt how come there is no mention of a law suit. The result of that would certainly get someone's attention at COLT. If you were not personally hurt you were very lucky.
I have two older Colts, a Dick Special .38 2'' and a Cobra 2'' .38 and I would not put +P or +P+ in either gun. I know about Colt not producing revolvers for years, nor many pistolsmithes that will work on Colts.
I have a few much stouter guns (S&W) that say +P right on the barrel, those I will load hot if necessary. Better yet with the +P+ I would only shoot that in my .357s!
Last edited:
Hi forum;
Not meaning to highjack the thread but Texas Star mentions above that S & W did not advise +P in their airweights.
I cannot find any information about that and would like to know if anybody else out there has seen an advisory to not use +P in an airweight.
Photos attached are of my Model 60 no dash plainly stamped on the barrel .38 S & W Spl, while the other photo is my 637-2 (2002) and that barrel is plainly stamped .38 S & W Spl +P. (year 2002 with IL)
Also I do not recall any advisories in the 637-2 Manual but will check when I get home tonight.
I probably run 100's of +P through the 637 and now I wonder about "frame stretching" per above posts. Any other forum members have any experience (good or bad) with these points? P.S. I do not reload as I have just never had the time.
Thanks in advance for any input and comments.
Not meaning to highjack the thread but Texas Star mentions above that S & W did not advise +P in their airweights.
I cannot find any information about that and would like to know if anybody else out there has seen an advisory to not use +P in an airweight.
Photos attached are of my Model 60 no dash plainly stamped on the barrel .38 S & W Spl, while the other photo is my 637-2 (2002) and that barrel is plainly stamped .38 S & W Spl +P. (year 2002 with IL)
Also I do not recall any advisories in the 637-2 Manual but will check when I get home tonight.
I probably run 100's of +P through the 637 and now I wonder about "frame stretching" per above posts. Any other forum members have any experience (good or bad) with these points? P.S. I do not reload as I have just never had the time.
Thanks in advance for any input and comments.
Similar threads
- Locked
