hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
It is all bad, give it to me
It is all bad, give it to me
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Does ammo ever go bad?
- Thread starter sjhipple
- Start date
swillden
Regular Member
imported post
FightingGlock19 wrote:
I have no doubt that if you were to take a loaded gun and toss it in a campfire, within a few minutes it would fire. Likewise a home-defense weapon in a housefire. I'm not so sure an autoloader would cycle through the magazine, though; I'd think the rounds have just as much chance of blowing in the magazine as in the chamber.
Hmm. This would be a cool one for Mythbusters to test.
FightingGlock19 wrote:
Why not? In a housefire, the gun will get as hot as the surrounding fire. Since a campfire is hot enough to cause rounds to cook off, a housefire certainly is.
I have no doubt that if you were to take a loaded gun and toss it in a campfire, within a few minutes it would fire. Likewise a home-defense weapon in a housefire. I'm not so sure an autoloader would cycle through the magazine, though; I'd think the rounds have just as much chance of blowing in the magazine as in the chamber.
Hmm. This would be a cool one for Mythbusters to test.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
swillden wrote:
swillden wrote:
That would be a cool one to see. Unfortunately, I don't think it is feasible. Isn't there an issue with blanks not cycling a semi-auto? If it won't cycle with blanks how dangerous would that test be? It would have to be conducted in a bullet-proof room and then how would you vent the heat source without leaving the at least slight chance of a richocet leaving through that vent? But it would be really neat!
swillden
Regular Member
imported post
deepdiver wrote:
If I were trying to test the myth, I think I'd dig a hole then cover the roof with two or three layers of sandbags. Then I'd heat the gun in an electric oven, inside the test chamber.
I'd like to see what happens to some of the polymer frame pistols. I think the polymer would melt before the rounds cook off. Of course the barrel and chamber aren't polymer, but the plastic does hold some of the pieces in position. My guess is that the chamber would stay closed after the polymer is melted, so the chambered round would fire "normally", but that the magazine wouldn't stay in position so even if the rounds didn't cook off in the mag, they wouldn't feed. I'd also be curious if a handgun that is just lying on some surface would cycle properly even if the magazine were in place.
deepdiver wrote:
Yeah, it might take some effort to build a safe test chamber. They wouldn't necessarily have to use a fire, though. They could use an electric heat source, adjusted to the correct temperature. If they did want to use a fire that could probably be done too, but it would require some careful engineering.
If I were trying to test the myth, I think I'd dig a hole then cover the roof with two or three layers of sandbags. Then I'd heat the gun in an electric oven, inside the test chamber.
I'd like to see what happens to some of the polymer frame pistols. I think the polymer would melt before the rounds cook off. Of course the barrel and chamber aren't polymer, but the plastic does hold some of the pieces in position. My guess is that the chamber would stay closed after the polymer is melted, so the chambered round would fire "normally", but that the magazine wouldn't stay in position so even if the rounds didn't cook off in the mag, they wouldn't feed. I'd also be curious if a handgun that is just lying on some surface would cycle properly even if the magazine were in place.
Shortie
Regular Member
imported post
Shortie's article ( http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/search.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-02-20-0111.html ) is another one filled with feeling and quotes but very little in the way of facts. MythBusters may not be 100% accurate, but at least they use working models and the Scientific Method rather than interviewing a few people and making things up, unlike the modern media.
Shortie's article ( http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/search.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-02-20-0111.html ) is another one filled with feeling and quotes but very little in the way of facts. MythBusters may not be 100% accurate, but at least they use working models and the Scientific Method rather than interviewing a few people and making things up, unlike the modern media.
Wynder
State Researcher
imported post
A buddy of mine reloads and uses powder that DuPont made back in the 70's when he worked for DuPont, heh! Cool and dry and you should be good.
A buddy of mine reloads and uses powder that DuPont made back in the 70's when he worked for DuPont, heh! Cool and dry and you should be good.
imported post
Pointman wrote:
That is true.
We can all find anecdotal data that is worth just about what we payed for it.
In the absence of true scientific data, which I don't have, I can offer this.
I bought a .30-06 in 1964. I also bought a supply of surplus ammo, from WWII and shot it with no problem.....the ammo being about 20 years old.
When I moved to Texas back in 1974, I bought some shells for my 12 gauge. The shells got put up and forgotten. I found them last year and I took a young friend of mine out shooting and they shot just fine.....the ammo being about 33 years old.
Not very scientific, but my experience shows...keep it cool and dry and it will store andwork for a very long time.
Pointman wrote:
That is true.
We can all find anecdotal data that is worth just about what we payed for it.
In the absence of true scientific data, which I don't have, I can offer this.
I bought a .30-06 in 1964. I also bought a supply of surplus ammo, from WWII and shot it with no problem.....the ammo being about 20 years old.
When I moved to Texas back in 1974, I bought some shells for my 12 gauge. The shells got put up and forgotten. I found them last year and I took a young friend of mine out shooting and they shot just fine.....the ammo being about 33 years old.
Not very scientific, but my experience shows...keep it cool and dry and it will store andwork for a very long time.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
I have 8-10 rds of UMC .38 spc ammo left that my g/f bought when he got home from WWII. There were about 75 rds which my uncle and I shot in the early to mid 80s when it was about 40 years old. The last time I shot any was in the late 90s when it was over 50 years old and it was still fine. I don't know when or if I will shoot the remainder although now I am tempted to try a round next time at the range.
I have 8-10 rds of UMC .38 spc ammo left that my g/f bought when he got home from WWII. There were about 75 rds which my uncle and I shot in the early to mid 80s when it was about 40 years old. The last time I shot any was in the late 90s when it was over 50 years old and it was still fine. I don't know when or if I will shoot the remainder although now I am tempted to try a round next time at the range.
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Yep. Military ammo is made to milsurp specs and that means waterproofing sealant around bullet and primer and a crimped in primer. Lasts long time!
Yep. Military ammo is made to milsurp specs and that means waterproofing sealant around bullet and primer and a crimped in primer. Lasts long time!