Shotgun Forum banner

Mossberg 930 SPX barrel burst (squib using Wolf slugs)

2 reading
5.1K views 20 replies 13 participants last post by  kingjoey  
#1 ·
I was acting as SO for a shooter in a stage of a 3-gun match yesterday. In the middle of the stage (after 8 or so rounds of birdshot) 2 slugs were required. The shooter loaded 2 Wolf slugs, attempted to fire, *click* (we all thought it was simply a dud)... he quickly performed a malfunction clearance, ejected the first and chambered the next slug, aimed, pulled the trigger, and BOOOOOM.

For a second the shooter didn't notice the burst barrel and was preparing to load up with birdshot and continue with the stage until I stopped him (I think he would have noticed something wrong once he brought the gun up and sighted down the barrel...) :shock:

First thing I said to him (after "stop! Stop!" and safety checking/chamber flagging the weapon--I suppose it could still fire, theoretically--and asking if he was hurt, which he wasn't... otherwise he probably would have noticed something was wrong :wink: ) was "is it possible you chambered a 20 gauge first by mistake?" It was kind of chaotic/confusing for a minute, as you can imagine.

It wasn't until afterward that we looked at the hulls on the ground and noticed they were both empty. Until that point we assumed he just ejected a dud cartridge as you normally would during a malfunction clearance. It all happened very quickly. One of the guys waiting to shoot said he thought it was strange that the "dud" that was ejected first was smoking on the ground, but he didn't really have time to think about it. It was just one of those things you only realize after it happens. And by the time he could have said anything the shooter had already pulled the trigger on the next round anyway.

The shooter had borrowed the shotgun from his brother, who wasn't very happy, understandably. Thankfully nobody was hurt. I was almost directly behind the shooter, a position which probably protected me from any schrapnel, which looks to have gone up and to the right from what we could guess.

From what we could tell the magazine tube wasn't damaged, but obviously the forend was destroyed. The owner says he's going to attempt to get compensated from Wolf (and there were many witnesses). It was a bit scary because we all just heard a "click" as the hammer fell, not a "pop" that would indicate an obvious squib. I suppose it's possible that a slow/late/incomplete powder burn occurred quietly just before he racked the bolt, and thus had just enough power to drive the slug into the barrel. Or maybe the round had very little or no powder and the primer's 'pop' was insulated by the barrel and the slug in front of it.

I've gone over this and over this in my head and tried to determine what we could have done better, and short of examining every *click* "dud" cartridge and examining the bore to ensure it's clear before the next shot is fired, which is obviously not the norm in a "competition" environment... I can't think of anything that would have prevented it in this specific case. If there had been an obvious "pop" of the primer we all would have stopped him, as has happened before (primers loaded backwards, etc.). But tactical/combat/competition malfunction drills emphasize clearing the dud/malfunction quickly and moving on.

In any case... in my private/informal shooting I'm going to take a good look at the bore and the shell after a "dud", before I load another round. Be careful out there, guys. Wear your eye protection. 8)

Image

Image

Image


 
#3 ·
No prob.

Also FYI I didn't see any damage to the receiver, and the bolt still moved freely.

I and several others commented about the quality of modern steel barrels... rather than simply grenade into a million fragments, the barrel stayed in large pieces and for the most part, held together (though "peeled").

I'd use a 930 without reservation. I'm not so sure about wolf slugs. However any mfg can occasionally produce undercharged or squib loads. The really high-end "hand inspected" stuff may be less likely, but I don't have any statistics on that.
 
#6 ·
Not sure about a slug... my brother had a squib in his .357 blackhawk using JHP rounds (luckily didn't fire the next shot) and it took a brass rod and a hammer and a vise to get it out. Very tight.

Not sure if the slug is as tight, particularly in a back-bored barrel or something. It was obviously tight enough to cause a kablooey though.
 
#9 ·
1KPerDay said:
I've gone over this and over this in my head and tried to determine what we could have done better, and short of examining every *click* "dud" cartridge and examining the bore to ensure it's clear before the next shot is fired, which is obviously not the norm in a "competition" environment... I can't think of anything that would have prevented it in this specific case.
Are non-firing shells or "duds" that normal for you?
 
#10 ·
No, but they do happen, particularly with handgun ammo, or rifle ammo with harder military primers, which some people use. And some guys run lighter hammer springs which compunds the problem.

Also with guys running pump guns quickly sometimes they short shuck, and you would have only a fraction of a second to determine whether it's a short shuck or a dud and stop the shooter before the next shot.

It's just not practical the way the current "tactical/competition" matches are set up (with an emphasis on quickly clearing malfunctions and moving on). I suppose it's simply a risk you take if you choose to participate in these events.
 
#11 ·
If you sub "convenient" for "practical" it is a bit closer to the truth. Of course, 50 / 50 hindsight, etc., etc. Having the benefit of hindsight is always handy,

Nevertheless, the shooter is in the wrong. Nobody makes you fire a shotgun with a bore obstruction and the "dud" was an obvious signal that things weren't at all right.

The downside is that bore obstruction placement and a catastrophic failure isn't precisely predictable. The shooter could have just as easily lost a hand or an eyeball just because playing the game isn't practical-- or, a bystander could have been severely injured as well.

it is a pretty high level of unnecessary risk-taking just because it blows the score. If it was easy to grow arms and eyes back, then that would be another matter. It was an elective shot and poor judgement was made in taking it. It is "ha-ha" when guns go and there are no injuries. Not so funny when your hand is missing. I've seen it both ways.
 
#15 ·
RandyWakeman said:
If you sub "convenient" for "practical" it is a bit closer to the truth. Of course, 50 / 50 hindsight, etc., etc. Having the benefit of hindsight is always handy,

Nevertheless, the shooter is in the wrong. Nobody makes you fire a shotgun with a bore obstruction and the "dud" was an obvious signal that things weren't at all right.

The downside is that bore obstruction placement and a catastrophic failure isn't precisely predictable. The shooter could have just as easily lost a hand or an eyeball just because playing the game isn't practical-- or, a bystander could have been severely injured as well.

it is a pretty high level of unnecessary risk-taking just because it blows the score. If it was easy to grow arms and eyes back, then that would be another matter. It was an elective shot and poor judgement was made in taking it. It is "ha-ha" when guns go and there are no injuries. Not so funny when your hand is missing. I've seen it both ways.
Certainly the shooter has the option to stop the stage and examine the gun, though I've never heard that eventuality being specifically outlined or emphasized in the pre-match safety briefings. Perhaps it should be. All I'm saying is that's not the norm in this type of competition, for good or bad. the "Tap/Rack/Bang" method of quickly clearing malfunctions is the norm and is commonly accepted as "law."

You are not alone in your disapproval of this method of malfunction clearance being used in this type of competition. I have heard from several people saying things such as "they should rewrite the rules, any misfire/malfunction should result in an immediate cease fire, make safe, examine... eyes and hands don't grow back, etc." I have also heard from many people saying things like "well, that's the risk you take when you're on the clock, and changing the rules would completely ruin the competition." (whether or not it's the "rule.")

Certainly in my own case, if I hear an obvious "pop" of a primer I immediately cease fire, make safe, examine, etc. But if for example I am on a pistol stage and the hammer falls but there's no "bang" or "pop", in the past I would immediately "tap/rack/bang" and continue on. I am reconsidering this "habit"... I'm never fast enough to be close to winning anyway. :D

3gunguy, yeah, keep us informed for sure.
 
#16 ·
It was very clearly stated that there was no "puff" that one would expect with a squib. In tactical shooting the shooter's first priority is generally getting the gun back on target and NOT wasting time diagnosing. If you train on the range to pussyfoot around with malfunctions, you will do it in a gun fight, and you will probably get killed.
 
#19 ·
I think the primary driving force behind these types of competitions is to simulate real-life scenarios, or at least the weapon handling parts. And, of course, in a firefight nobody is going to stop to let you carefully inpect your weapon. Proponents of quick malfunction clearing would surely argue that the one who survives when his firearm malfunctions in the middle of a fight is the one who gets back in it ASAP. 99.99% of the time, indeed some variation of "tap / rack / bang" is all that is needed, and full bore obstructions are extremely rare. Not saying the risk is any less existant, but if one is in the mindset of being in a real gunfight, and understands that if he doesn't get rounds back downrange he's going to be full of holes in another 5 seconds, he won't want to take 10 or 15 seconds everytime his weapon malfunctions.

I guess long story short, my point is most everyone agrees that one will fight how he trains. For those who view these competitions as firearms handling training, they will want to practice how they should fight, which means quick malfunction clearing.

Now, and while I haven't participated in shooting competition in a while and probably won't for another good while, I would still not be opposed to the safety officer immediately stopping the shooter any time there is an unclear malfunction.