It bothers me a bit that in all of these Kaboom type threads, it boils down to Smith & Wesson saying the gun was fine and the ammo manufacturer saying the ammo was fine. So in the end you are kind of screwed. I read something like your post and think "I should buy another Ruger". It's not that I expect Smith & Wesson to take the hit if they don't believe they are at fault, but as the customer, I would sure be more motivated to buy a Shield 40 if I saw Smith and Wesson dealing with these situations like Ruger. I understand it might be the ammo manufacturer at fault, but as the customer here, it would just be nice to feel like you'd be taken care of somewhere.
Sadly - Another .40 Shield Kaboom
- Thread starter jdw1951
- Start date
- Status
It bothers me a bit that in all of these Kaboom type threads, it boils down to Smith & Wesson saying the gun was fine and the ammo manufacturer saying the ammo was fine. So in the end you are kind of screwed. I read something like your post and think "I should buy another Ruger". It's not that I expect Smith & Wesson to take the hit if they don't believe they are at fault, but as the customer, I would sure be more motivated to buy a Shield 40 if I saw Smith and Wesson dealing with these situations like Ruger. I understand it might be the ammo manufacturer at fault, but as the customer here, it would just be nice to feel like you'd be taken care of somewhere.
I wouldn't expect them to say any different.
The 45 ACP is a relatively low pressure round. In fact, the pressure generated is 25-30% less than a 9mm or 40SW.
It would never be a problem.
.45 ACP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
PurpleMountainOutdoors
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2014
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 33
SAAMI eh?
Can you show me the SAAMI limit on .40 S&W +P, then?
Just because a manufacturer of a product says it's "certified" doesnt make it so.
Actually, I should have said, everything they make that has a SAAMI spec, excluding 380+p and 40+p and 9mm +p+
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Silversmok3
Member
So, by that reasoning Chevy should step up and provide a free car to any teenager who wrecks their Camaro on prom night.
If the OP handloaded a 10mm spec into a .40 round in his garage and thus grenaded his weapon, there wouldn't be a debate about the company being responsible .Yet because a third party ammo company did it, S&W should replace the gun free of charge?!!
The logic doesn't follow .I empathize with the OPs experience, but the only thing S&W should do is send back a nicely worded letter saying "Choose ammo made for the gun next time."
Silversmok3
Member
Duly noted.
Bottom line, if you put Acme brand ammo in your gun, be not surprised at a Warner Brothers outcome!
I don't equate shooting factory ammo with reckless driving, so no. But if Camaro's were exploding in the middle of the road because of either a defect or gas issues, then I don't know? Some of the other threads had normal spec factory ammo. Either way, that wasn't my point at all. My point was not "Smith and Wesson SHOULD replace the gun". My point was "I'd feel much more motivated to buy a gun from a company that took that extra step to take care of it's customers even when it might not be required". I'm not chucking my M&P's or deciding that I won't ever buy another Smith & Wesson. I'm merely observing that when a similar issue happened with someones Ruger, they replaced it and that is nice.
PurpleMountainOutdoors
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2014
- Messages
- 137
- Reaction score
- 33
True true. Although to be fair, Glock hasn't acknowledged any wrong doing in the alleged glock kb's either.
Lets just call it like it is, we hear more and more about the potential dangers of the 40 S&W. 9mm for capacity, 45 for big bore, and 10mm for anything those two can't handle. No round can be all things to all people.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Never say never. One of the posts around recently mentioned how a guy blew out the entire right side of his 1911 Kimber .45ACP. The pieces of the gun hit the person to his right.
Obviously, overcharged .45ACP reloads he was shooting.
GreyOwl
Member
I think your typo is more correct than if spelled correctly!!
armenius
US Veteran
Sorry about your gun but thank God you weren't injured.I wonder if there is some inherent danger associated with the 40 S&W.Several years ago I had a Glock kaboom.Thank God only the extractor was blown off.I called Glock the next day and they asked about the ammo used.He then explained that it was a problem with the early Federal ammo I was using and there had been other problems.He stated he would call Federal and they would contact me,and that he was sending me the shipping labels and the Glock would would be taken care of at no cost.I hung up and started to drive home when my phone rang before I got out of the parking lot.It was a gentleman from Federal who inquired about any injuries,then he told me my ammo ( which I had bought from someone at a very good price) had been recalled previously,and for me to return it all for replacement.My Glock was back in a couple of weeks with parts updated and like new.I later received all premium Federal ammo,even more than I returned.I made out like a champ with no headaches,no BS ,or lawyers.This is the type of business I like and respect.
I think SW has more skin in the game. Win a lawsuit against Underwood and you get handed the keys to a pole barn with some reloading machines in it. LLC.
On a more serious note, the spec for law enforcement 40 was 165 gr @ 980 fps. Basically a 8-10% under maximum load and what I would consider using in a pocket gun.
On a more serious note, the spec for law enforcement 40 was 165 gr @ 980 fps. Basically a 8-10% under maximum load and what I would consider using in a pocket gun.
Sorry to hear of the OP's KB, glad to hear everyone is ok. I have to go with what many here have said.. overcharge of some kind... I own both a 9 and 40 Shield, carry the 40 daily and won't be changing that from this thread. I seem to see a pattern here, one that points to ammo not a defective gun. Until someone comes here with a professional, realistic diagnoses, I ain't riding this pony..
I'm not one to carry or shoot any exotic or high powered special SD ammo. All my ammo for practice and carry is pretty much simple cheap ammo. Usually WWB, Winchester Ranger....
I'm not one to carry or shoot any exotic or high powered special SD ammo. All my ammo for practice and carry is pretty much simple cheap ammo. Usually WWB, Winchester Ranger....
feelinlucky
Member
General Motors makes specific recommendations as to the fuel that should be used in Camaros. If someone tries to burn nitromethane in one, it might well explode in the middle of the road. GM is likely not going to be inclined to take responsibility if that happens.
Ditchdigger
Member
So disregard the other threads mentioning Federal hydra shok and wwb because Chevys don't run on jet fuel? I have a shield on my hip as I type and admittedly I'm a bit nervous about running anything through it. I guess all I'm saying is who cares about the camaro, let's be concerned with our flawless til she blows .40's. Is it or is it not an issue?
No disrespect meant, I'm just looking for answers.
No disrespect meant, I'm just looking for answers.
Oh yeah, your right about that, it can and does happen. My bad.
I guess I should have qualified my statement by stating commonly loaded ammo manufactured by one of the major manufacturers in the business.
Take a look at the image below. This is a 10mm table. As you can see, in the 135 grain, 1,415-1,473 fps is considered 'Full Power".
Underwood 135 .40 is rated at 1,450.
The OP was shooting a 10mm full power load out of a Shield...a single stack pocket pistol.....
Can't say I blame SW for at least this one.
Underwood 135 .40 is rated at 1,450.
The OP was shooting a 10mm full power load out of a Shield...a single stack pocket pistol.....
Can't say I blame SW for at least this one.
Last edited:
DeeBee
Member
I would love to know your source that "most" kabooms happen with the .40 round?? Do a Google search of kaboom pics. You will see every brand gun and every caliber ammunition will kaboom. I would post all the pictures, but I have already done that before and will not waste my time. The reality is, most kaboom a result from improperly reloaded ammo.
As for the OPs gun, I am willing to bet the ammo caused his kaboom. That is my educated opinion after shooting 25 years of well known factory ammo.
Last edited:
feelinlucky
Member
Perhaps I can spell it out for you.
A manufacturing company makes and sells a product, such as a Camaro, or a handgun.
Along with that product, they include recommendations for the product's use, such as what fuel to put in it, or what ammunition to put in it.
They also issue warnings about the possible undesirable outcomes of not adhering to those recommendations, such as burning nitromethane, or using ammunition that is potentially over pressure.
In either case, something might blow up.
You claim to be looking for answers? Start with the owner's manual, particularly the part where it states what ammunition is recommended. Reloads from an unknown source, alleged "+P" ammo from a company known for producing hot ammo, alleged Federal Hydra shok of dubious age and origin, and alleged WWB, also of dubious age and origin, may or may not qualify as recommended ammo.
Well I just got back to my computer and caught up with the posts since last night.
I appreciate the constructive input from the majority of the posts. I believe there is difficulty with the +P designation when used with the .40 S&W. It appears we all would be better served if firearm manufacturers and ammo manufacturers would not use the +P term for a caliber that does not have +P SAAMI specification. As I stated in an earlier post, I discussed with Underwood their 135-grain +P designation and was told they use it to caution buyers to not fire it in firearms that prohibit +P ammo. They also stated their 135-grain round was loaded to 34,000 psi which is lower than the .40 S&W SAAMI maximum pressure of 35,000 psi. When my brother-in-law offered 4 rounds of the ammo to try, he asked if the .40 Shield was rated for +P ammo. I confirmed that the owner's manual stated it was ok to shoot but warned that it may cause premature wear in the Shield. I had no intent to use a defensive load like this for routine shooting. However, I NEVER dreamed that the 4th round I fired would blow my Shield apart while held in my hand directly in front of my face! I hope I never have to experience anything like that again and I surely do not want anyone else to go through that either. I take my safety and my adjacent shooter’s safety very seriously.
I hope that we all can benefit from this thread. I take no pleasure in questioning a product of a company that I have revered for over 50 years. Nor, do I want to call into question an ammunition company who by all my research, family recommendations, and personal detailed discussions with the owner, lead me to believe is a first class company who wants to serve a niche market for high performance ammunition.
It may be that it will be necessary to provide a warning in the future by S&W and/or Underwood and its competitors who make similar ammo to prohibit the use of this type of ammo in the Shield or similar firearms. It now seems to me it is meaningless to use the +P designation without an actual SAAMI corresponding specification.
I too feel the industry needs an independent unbiased organization that could provide a comprehensive analysis of both firearm and ammo when similar situations occur. This hopefully would help the industry evolve as new materials and technology drive us to push the limits of optimum performance balanced by safety.
As I stated in the beginning of my thread, I only want to help prevent another KB that could be catastrophic.
I appreciate the constructive input from the majority of the posts. I believe there is difficulty with the +P designation when used with the .40 S&W. It appears we all would be better served if firearm manufacturers and ammo manufacturers would not use the +P term for a caliber that does not have +P SAAMI specification. As I stated in an earlier post, I discussed with Underwood their 135-grain +P designation and was told they use it to caution buyers to not fire it in firearms that prohibit +P ammo. They also stated their 135-grain round was loaded to 34,000 psi which is lower than the .40 S&W SAAMI maximum pressure of 35,000 psi. When my brother-in-law offered 4 rounds of the ammo to try, he asked if the .40 Shield was rated for +P ammo. I confirmed that the owner's manual stated it was ok to shoot but warned that it may cause premature wear in the Shield. I had no intent to use a defensive load like this for routine shooting. However, I NEVER dreamed that the 4th round I fired would blow my Shield apart while held in my hand directly in front of my face! I hope I never have to experience anything like that again and I surely do not want anyone else to go through that either. I take my safety and my adjacent shooter’s safety very seriously.
I hope that we all can benefit from this thread. I take no pleasure in questioning a product of a company that I have revered for over 50 years. Nor, do I want to call into question an ammunition company who by all my research, family recommendations, and personal detailed discussions with the owner, lead me to believe is a first class company who wants to serve a niche market for high performance ammunition.
It may be that it will be necessary to provide a warning in the future by S&W and/or Underwood and its competitors who make similar ammo to prohibit the use of this type of ammo in the Shield or similar firearms. It now seems to me it is meaningless to use the +P designation without an actual SAAMI corresponding specification.
I too feel the industry needs an independent unbiased organization that could provide a comprehensive analysis of both firearm and ammo when similar situations occur. This hopefully would help the industry evolve as new materials and technology drive us to push the limits of optimum performance balanced by safety.
As I stated in the beginning of my thread, I only want to help prevent another KB that could be catastrophic.
- Status
Similar threads
