M1A Kaboom - update

[SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI]

This is an update on Chris Comer's M1A KB featured on the Gun Zone. Clint Mc Kee of Fulton Armory paid to have the failure analyzed by a metallurgist. Click on the link and see what they found:


http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-762r.html

This is a lesson to all about using substandard or non-milspec parts.

 

[Schmit]

This is a lesson to all about using substandard or non-milspec parts.

I may be missing something here but how, without the type of tests done by Fulton, how would you know if your getting sugstandard parts. And wasn't Chris' M1A milspec... even though it was used?

I read the report as there heat treating was done wrong when the barrel was made.

 

[SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI]

Schmit,

Note the sidebar by Clint McKee: quote:
"The barrel was a commercial medium weight contour barrel, not a GI barrel, and had no markings at all. So unless Chris knows who made it, it's not possible to know."

Anything made to milspec will have a manufacturer's stamp on the part. If there is no stamp, I would consider the quality of the part suspect and avoid using it.

 

[Schmit]

STGM

I'm not disagreeing with you only trying to make a point. Even if it had marking you still don't know, with out running the tests, if the metal is right. Granted, the manufactuer does QC but even the best sometimes have things slip by. And i'm sure barrel manufactures buy blanks from another source who probably buys the metal in ingets or some such thing. That adds up to alot of QC that has to be done... and if any one of them isn't done correctly.......

 

[WalterGAII]

So, Schmit, what you're saying, then, is that we should never fire rifles made by any manufacturer, because only rifles whose barrels have been tested as aforementioned can be safe to use? In other words, your position is that no rifles are safe? If that's not your position, then what's the point of your post?? I'm befuddled.

 

[Schmit]

I'm befuddled

Yes, Walter, you are!

My posts were in response to STGM's comment about using sub-standard parts. There is no way, out side of your actually having the metal tested, to know if the barrel you have is sub-standard or not.

It may be gaurenteed but that just means it is replacable doesn't it.

I'm of the mind that what happened is such a rare occurance now a days, that it isn't even worth worrying your pretty ittle head about.

 

[BigG]

Translation:

"Only buy a rifle from Clint McKee." Have you not seen old products that were marked "None genuine without this signature" or similar? Counterfeiting is an ongoing problem. We have gotten away with it by declaring things public domain, like the M16, but make mine a Colt, anyway! Some products are worth demanding and others are generic. I think guns should be the original product. Clearly an M1A is aftermarket because the M14 is basically verboten, but if I were getting a Garand, I'd pay extra for an original Springfield or Winchester. YMMV

 

[Hipower]

I think the lesson here is that there is far less chance of this if you use a well known brand since they have something at stake, and they can and will make quality judgements during the time a blank becomes a barrel. Barrel makers, especially premium makers, do not want their name associated with something like this. Who ever made the barrel in question understood this too, and didn't put their mark on it.

Another lesson is to not take things at face value. As I remember, the original post indicated this rifle was a recent match quality rebuild. Clearly, that was not the case. If the owner recently had the rifle worked on, and paid for what he belived was a match quality rifle, he was ripped off, as the report indicates a well used commercial barrel of unknown origin. Tell me a match rifle builder who uses such components, and I'll tell you a match rifle builder to avoid.

 

[Zander]

I'm having trouble believing that...

...all of you actually read the report.

The barrel and receiver were, "used and abused".

What can I tell you...things wear out. <shrug>

 

[Dean Speir]

Comments…

Hmmmn… interesting how people interpret what they read.

First, I gotta say that I had always felt that anything this catastrophic…

…had to have been as a result of a non-standard round. (And no, I'm not one of the AL-BVD crowd who immediately assumed the impossible [C-4] had occurred!) I mean, after all those rounds and all those years of service, who'd've suspected the barrel?!?

I read the report as there heat treating was done wrong when the barrel was made.

Don't know if you recall Big John Kepler, Schmit (he was a member of our crew in the old days, circa '94-'95), but did you read his comments in the sidebar about, as the dopers say, "knowing your dealer?" His point was, based on those 50X photos, that the bar stock was crap from the jump, and no reputable barrel-maker would have accepted such inferior steel.

There is no way, out side of your actually having the metal tested, to know if the barrel you have is sub-standard or not.

I think that's extreme, and would refer back to Big John's advice, and Hipower seems to agree.

And Walter, it's not jus' 'cause I'm experienced in Schmit-speak™, but yes, I think you are muy "befuddled!"

"Only buy a rifle from Clint McKee."

That's neither fair, nor accurate, BigG… and is certainly nowhere reflected in either the commissioned report, nor any of the accompanying commentary.

Have you not seen old products that were marked "None genuine without this signature" or similar? Counterfeiting is an ongoing problem. We have gotten away with it by declaring things public domain, like the M16, but make mine a Colt, anyway! Some products are worth demanding and others are generic. I think guns should be the original product.

Among the knowledgable today, sad to say, you would be in a minority.

Conceptually, I agree with the adage… I recall eight-nine years back when USMC swapped places in queue with USAF (who was in a hurry) so they could get the Colt's M16s because the FN barrels were not to USMC's standard.

But the simple fact is that there are several manufacturers today, starting with Bushmaster, producing better Colt's/Stoner-pattern carbines and rifles than are the guys in West Hartford.

 

[WalterGAII]

I must be befuddled. I've fired well over 50,000 rounds of my reloads through my Glocks, with only one blown-up Glock. (With an aftermarket barrel, of course.)

 

[Redlg155]

Perhaps I missed this point, but no specific mention was made of the Ammo type used?

I know there are pressure differences between Nato Spec 7.62 ammo and .308 winchester ammo, with greater pressures in .308 winchester.

Does it state anywhere as to what particualar type of ammo was used?


Good Shooting
RED

 

[Dean Speir]

Sure does…

Perhaps I missed this point, but no specific mention was made of the Ammo type used? … Does it state anywhere as to what particualar type of ammo was used?

Sure does… go back and read the original event report and Chris Comers replies. There's even an image of the package.

I must be befuddled. I've fired well over 50,000 rounds of my reloads through my Glocks, with only one blown-up Glock. (With an aftermarket barrel, of course.)

And this is germane how, Walt? Befuddled is as befuddled posts.

 

[Schmit]

Schmit-speak™

Is that like Ebonics? Darn Dean, and all you use to complain about was my spelling.

but did you read his comments in the sidebar

NO... it wasn't there when I first read it. I just did though.

 

[Cheapo]

Drat! I should have posted my prediction, based on the condition of the brass. High pressure ammo should have smashed the headstamp letters flat and resulted in more "oozing" of the casing at it approached what I think of as a fluid state as it failed.

The primer backing out looked like an event happening after the bolt was no longer containing the case, and after pressures had dropped dramatically.

Sooo.... Are we to expect that highpower rifles should be borescope inspected every 3,000 rounds or so for signs of this type of cracking? Or would a single inspection at 1,000 rounds be enough to reliably identify this problem.

Bad steel. BAD STEEL!!! No go sit in the corner, steel!

It's a shame how one bad key component could hurt the shooter and destroy an otherwise fine rifle. BTW, it appears that the M1A (and M1) receiver is merely a thing to hang the barrel on. Not much protection from the happenings inside the barrel.

 

[Gewehr98]

If I read the story correctly...

It was a no-name barrel. No marks, stamps, paperwork proving manufacturer, nada, zip. In my years of High Power competition shooting, I haven't seen many unmarked barrels like that on M14/M1A's, truthfully, and I doubt many shooters would want to install one to begin with, bargain or not. That's not saying there isn't a chance that some GI or commercial (ie, Douglas, Krieger, etc.) brand barrel didn't come off the line with a bad heat-treat of the barrel blank, but as part of the risk management equation, the numbers should swing slightly in your favor if you have a barrel of reputable manufacture. But a borescope isn't a bad idea, especially to see how well your throat is holding up after a season of steady competition.