- Joined
- Oct 19, 2016
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 3
Please read about my experience with a Colt Cobra DA .38 Special that exploded in my hand and the response I received back from Colt Firearm Company!
Exploding Colt Revolvers
- Thread starter CW4 Dennis
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
The thumbnail is blank. Please repost as I have one of them
Cobra LW .38 Special revolvers that I conceal carry.
Cobra LW .38 Special revolvers that I conceal carry.
ParadiseRoad
Member
...you're going after Colt for what appears to have been an ammo problem...it took more than +p to do that...maybe a squib load...followed by a +p...cylinder appears intact...so it probably wasn't a double charge...
Last edited:
If you click on the apparently blank thumbnail, you will be able to open or save the .pdf that it represents. I'm not very smart on computers, but you may have to have Adobe to do that. Most folks do, and it's free, anyway.
I don't know squat about metallurgy, but I'll bet Colt does. My limited exposure to people who know something about that leads me to believe that ParadiseRoad is correct. It may be obvious from the photos.
??
P.S. I didn't see a response from Colt in the .pdf - just a complaint from the OP.
I don't know squat about metallurgy, but I'll bet Colt does. My limited exposure to people who know something about that leads me to believe that ParadiseRoad is correct. It may be obvious from the photos.
??
P.S. I didn't see a response from Colt in the .pdf - just a complaint from the OP.
Last edited:
Arik
Member
Has this gun always been with you? I mean you're going after a company for a used gun.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Brian in Oregon
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 678
- Reaction score
- 914
Wait... what? You're expecting a manufacturer to replace a gun or compensate you for something that happened 40 years ago?
da gimp
Member
The remains of the revolver he posted above has me scratching my head... if that cylinder is as undamaged & intact as it looks in that picture, it is unexplainable (to me)for the rest of the gun to look like that... Remember what Lee told us about treating people with these cases with respect & courtesy... the big gorilla sounded very serious about that admonition...
iPac
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2015
- Messages
- 1,155
- Reaction score
- 1,398
As soon as I seen Colt Cobra, my first thought was over pressure rounds fired through the alloy frame.
I will never shoot +P through my Cobra. They are so light, and the alloy used is an old one. Not smart to shoot anything stout through them.
I am so leery of the alloy frame, that I turned down a '63 Cobra a month ago for $350. It was a used gun, and I have no idea how it was treated in the previous 53 years of its life. Just one of the risks you take when buying a used gun. I plan to wait and find a Detective for the wife.
Colt has quit working on their DA revolvers, so you will not get any help from them. Even if they were working on them, they don't honor any life time warranty. Unfortunately, this is just a sad part of life that the gun blew up. Have to buy another.
I will never shoot +P through my Cobra. They are so light, and the alloy used is an old one. Not smart to shoot anything stout through them.
I am so leery of the alloy frame, that I turned down a '63 Cobra a month ago for $350. It was a used gun, and I have no idea how it was treated in the previous 53 years of its life. Just one of the risks you take when buying a used gun. I plan to wait and find a Detective for the wife.
Colt has quit working on their DA revolvers, so you will not get any help from them. Even if they were working on them, they don't honor any life time warranty. Unfortunately, this is just a sad part of life that the gun blew up. Have to buy another.
Last edited:
THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
da gimp
Member
I could not get the pdf to open & I have Adobe...are you guys saying this happened 40 years ago, & he's only complaining about it now, or is it a 40 something year old handgun & this happened far more recently.. I wish the OP was more forthcoming about the details... caliber, ammo used, circumstances etc. There is so little info given that no reasonable person can even guess what happened.
TAC
Member
...you're going after Colt for what appears to have been an ammo problem...it took more than +p to do that...maybe a squib load...followed by a +p...cylinder appears intact...so it probably wasn't a double charge...
Why is the picture so strange looking, and where is the rest of the frame?
CATI1835
US Veteran
New member, first post. Something seems a little off to me...
da gimp
Member
it appears that someone partially dis-assembled it after the incident...there are 2 small screws laying side by side from the side plate (?) & it looks like all the internal lock work was removed then too.. strange.
"...you might want to discuss it with the guys at the link below..."
_________________________________________________
Given that it's his first post here, I'll bet it's on as many firearms forums as he could join.
Looooove the internet
_________________________________________________
Given that it's his first post here, I'll bet it's on as many firearms forums as he could join.
Looooove the internet
Looks to me from what I can see in the picture like a squib blocking the bore followed by a good round. What doesn't make sense is the frame is broken into several parts but the cylinder remains intact.
I don't understand why Colt was not contacted a whole lot sooner, after 40 years it's hard to get their attention.
I don't understand why Colt was not contacted a whole lot sooner, after 40 years it's hard to get their attention.
Last edited:
deadin
US Veteran
I got the pdf file with the OP's letter and pictures, but I don't see the response from Colt that he mentions....??????
(Unless he is considering the clipping as a response from the manufacturer rather than some gun reviewer)
Arik
Member
Wow. Talk about holding onto a grudge. By now I'd have long moved on
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
He says he bought it new in 1976.
He says he has been fighting Colt for 40 years.
I believe his plight is hopeless, but let's at least get his story straight.
This is some kind of joke right?
Weimar
US Veteran
and he's had it in his safe for 40 yrs - wow 
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.
Similar threads
- Locked
