09-28-2022, 01:26 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-28-2022, 01:40 AM by lazyengineer.)
Klem Wrote:Lazy,
The only thing 'staring us in the face', are the pieces of a catastrophic failure, and even in that there is a lot of information missing. For example, how the round was assembled by the OP at the time and its actual specs. Yes, that Lapua case failed, but that does not prove it is the cause. It could be a host of other reasons that have nothing to do with the brass manufacturer. And until you can rule out all other possible causes you cannot say with confidence it was Lapua's fault.
The only other potential cause you can confidently rule out is Hornady, and every other gun manufacturer, every other powder and powder manufacturer, etc. Yes, it was not a Hornady case in the breech at the time. But that does not prove which brass is stronger. It is just one piece of evidence.
That the case was Lapua and implying it was the cause, then generalizing to all Lapua brass beggars belief. Please stop with the Lapua hate, it is hijacking the thread.
In the last 12 months, 3 Kabooms - all with Lapua Brass. Lapua brass represents... what, 10% of all fired brass (not hardly, but we'll just say that.
N = 3.
First Kaboom = 10% chance of having been with Lapua (if Lapua is 10% of all fired reloaded brass). ALL 3 kabooms to exclusively be Lapua? For all 3 kabooms to all mysteriously be Lapua, is 0.10^3; which is a 1 in 1000 chance, if Lapua is 10% of all reloaded brass (which it very much is not). None of the 3 kabooms show sign of overpressure or OOB. The refusal to recognize the remarkable odds of such a coincidence; combined with the painfully obvious difference in case construction at the very location of each failure is difficult to understand.