LRRPF52 Wrote:When seasoned, older reloaders who put high load counts on brass say, This one gets up to 50 reloads and others dont even approach that., thats a pretty huge indicator of the quality of one brass over others.
Early-on with 6.5 Grendel, we had guys on the forum who got 20 or more loads with Lapua brass, shot the headstamps out. No other brass that Im aware of has achieved that many loads.
When I have shot and reloaded Federal 6.5 Grendel brass, for example, I lost primer pockets within 2 loads when shooting through the AR-15.
Interestingly, this did not happen when shooting and loading it through the Howa Mini bolt-action rifle. Even with me loading well over 1-2 grains higher than book loads in the AR-15, the primer pockets stayed nice and tight in the Howa with Federal brass.
Hornady brass has been the next-best performer for me in terms of longevity, number of reloads.
Other seasoned reloaders here on the forum have reported as many as 8-12 loads. Depending on what dies, pressures, gas system lengths, and chambers are used, you might see that brass become unusable at 5 loads.
This catastrophic failure happened with new Lapua brass on his first firing of that batch, #41 of 50 hand-loaded cartridges.
That brings me to the question, can we see the heads of the 40 other fired pieces of brass if we havent seen them already?
More photos. I was only able to find the slightest ridge forming on 2 cases. #9, and #36. #41 was the kaboom.
StoneHendge Wrote:It's got nothing to do with the spec. The manufacturer likely effed up making the barrel. We've seen it here countless times on here barrel issues which were likely due to reaming too shallow or too deep. Easy enough to do with whatever tool they do the feed cone with too.
I understand. I made the point because BluntForceTrauma stated that there is no spec on it. And I'm just saying that *if* it did have a spec, then customers could reject a barrel based on it and also the manufacturer would have more incentive to check and make sure their barrel wasn't effed up before it made it out of the production line. Another way of looking at it is without a spec then there's less quality control over the making of it. And you wouldn't be able to hold a manufacturer accountable if they effed one up.
09-28-2022, 12:39 AM (This post was last modified: 09-28-2022, 01:13 AM by Klem.)
lazyengineer Wrote:It never creeped out - and there is no speculation- it's staring us in the face, and the heavily quoted Alexander confirms that a chamber dimension needs to be just so with that brass. Walls don't hold pressure, they are a gasket. Case heads hold pressure. No case head where there is no chamber wall = not holding pressure.
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.
There is some serious and unusual case expansion forward of the solid part of the case in the other cases. It does seem they are all heading for the same failure.
09-28-2022, 01:13 AM (This post was last modified: 09-28-2022, 01:15 AM by DeNinny.)
LRRPF52 Wrote:6.5 Grendel isnt a relatively high pressure round for modern cartridges. It has a much lower Maximum Average Pressure than 5.56x45, .308 Winchester, and other rifle cartridges that have been developed over the last 30 years. Most of your factory ammunition is running in the 47,000-49,500psi range, with MPSMs that cant exceed 52,000psi. These pressures were more common from the late 1800s-1950s, for reference.
See later discussion on this.
LRRPF52 Wrote:Excessive headspace can be caused by a combination of shoulder location and incorrect (too deep) bolt face depth. The brass grows to fill the void, since cartridge brass is so soft (Alloy 260 ~70/30 Copper/Zinc). Brass is just a high pressure gasket designed to hold the primer, propellant, and projectile together for repeating firearms for easy storage, transport, and stacking in feed devices. The chamber pressure immediately swells it into the shape of the chamber and bolt, from which it rebounds some back between its original shape and the obturated shape. Different brass manufacturers have their proprietary processes that create stronger brass, or easier to mass-produce brass. Lapua brass is known around the world for decades to have the strongest construction, last for the most reloads, and have the smallest SDs in weight, volume, neck thickness, flash hole geometry, etc.
Completely understood on all this. It matches my understanding of the science. I completely understand the reputation of Lapua too.
LRRPF52 Wrote:So during many excess headspace scenarios, the vast majority of the pressure is contained well within the chamber, but as the brass finishes its rearward growth, it stretches past the point of full chamber support, and there is enough residual pressure to blow out the now-exposed portion of brass.
This is where I have issue. Based on what I already posted, the M16 style feed cone is already unsupported chamber. Moreover the feed cone itself is unsupported and this is entirely in line with Bill Alexander's statements that he had to redesign the feed cone for the grendel round and make it shallower than the standard M16 feed cone. As such, I don't see a need to bring excessive headspace into the failure equation. In my own analysis I already accounted for the total overall unsupported depth which includes a deep bolt face and the added depth of an M16 style feed cone compared to an Alexander Arms one.
All that said, if you could quantify how much excessive head space would add to the total exposed area than what is already accounted for, I could understand the magnitude of its significance more. Your science has convinced me to put it on the table again, but I can't take the other failures off the table.
LRRPF52 Wrote:Since the extractor is still intact, that steers us towards excess headspace and not an over-pressure event. When you have case failures in the AR-15, its very common to have extractors destroyed. (A sidebar anecdote on this is that Hk placed a pin inside the barrel extension in the extractor clock location to help prevent this from happening on the Hk416.)
Since the case has a blowout, this is unequivocally an over-pressure event. But to be clear, I mean this simply that the pressure exceeded that of the brass to physically deform it. And this could happen in multiple ways, as mentioned earlier.
I think the pressure was simply not enough to break the extractor but that doesn't necessarily have to define the failure as excess headspace. And note that I am viewing excess headspace itself as an over-pressure event based on my simple definition above. I'm simply seeing this as an over-pressure event that was to the point of rupturing the brass, but it wasn't to the point of breaking the extractor. That is all. And I don't want to bias my judgement from assuming it could only have been due to excess headspace. Again I have other failure models that can explain this besides headspace.
LRRPF52 Wrote:I dont think we can say that Lapua brass definitely played a role in this. The only possibility there would be this particular piece of brass, not Lapua as a whole, and even thats a stretch.
As stated, this is why I said it is a "weak brass" issue as opposed to a Lapua specific issue. But also I'm not ruling out the possibility that Lapua brass could have a design issue here when it is used in conjunction with M16 feed cone style barrels. This is based on Bill Alexander's words himself...that he redesigned the feed cone around Lapua brass.
So you could argue that it is an M16 feed cone issue rather than a Lapua brass issue, but to me, by admission of Bill Alexander himself, the issues of both are intertwined.
LRRPF52 Wrote:Lapua 6.5 Grendel brass fleet experience at this time is in the millions of samples in production-who knows how many times those have been reloaded. Bills initial work was one of the only smaller companies that actually did pyramid testing on his rifles not just for reliability, but for accuracy and durability. In addition to that, he did high sand/dust testing regularly, flying out to a large training center in New Mexico where the surface is covered in sharp rocks, sand, and dust. If any of you recall the Future Weapons episode on 6.5 Grendel with Mack, it was filmed there. That was all done with Lapua brass loaded cartridge by Alexander Arms. 6.5 Grendel wasnt some small project with minimal testing, but an unusually-extensive and professionally-executed developmental program for a non-big-named company at the time.
So Lapua brass isnt a new, unproven, or anecdotal report-based it works for me component in this equation. It was already well-established in the 2000s due to extensive design, testing, and proven performance in large production. That has only grown exponentially since then. Janne Pohjoispaa of Lapua, who was instrumental in the development of .338 Lapua Magnum and 6.5x47 Lapua (superior design compared to 6.5Creedmoor), was the lead engineer in developing the finer details of 6.5 Grendel brass, working in conjunction with Bill Alexander. These are not only formally school-trained engineers specific to firearms and ammunition, but both had many years of experience prior to this developing cartridges for military and industry requirements. Bill worked on the UKs answer to the NATO PDW requirement with a cartridge called the .224 Boz, was trained within UK MoD how to do depot-level inspection and maintenance overhauls on AR-15s in UK service (by Eugene Stoner and other senior engineers), did .50 Beowulf, 5.45x39 in the AR-15 (.221 Genghis), and then 6.5 Grendel.
...
(text deleted to save space)
...
Many of the reference rifles used in velocity testing, in conjunction with pressure test breeches, were Alexander Arms AR-15s. For example, Hornadys sample rifles include 14.5 and 18 AA AR-15 carbines. I have personally confirmed this with Hornadys engineers, who went and looked in their armory to verify those test rifles for the 8th, 9th, and subsequent editions of their load manuals.
I have no reason not to take your word on any of this. I'll point out though that if Bill Alexander were involved in all of this, then I'm pretty sure that he would make sure all the rifles involved had the Alexander Arms feed cone barrels. You stated that much of the testing was with Alexander Arms AR-15s, so again all this great data is based on mostly barrels that addressed the issue that Bill Alexander himself stated was an issue.
Furthermore, this is all why I think the feed cone design should have been explicitly specified. By not specifying it, then ignorant barrel manufacturers are going to run into the issue that Bill already knew!
LRRPF52 Wrote:I already addressed the hypothesis of too much propellant earlier. 29.x grains of AA2520 under a 123gr cup and core bullet is not the max load with a chamber with his measurements.
Hornadys published loads for AA2520 are limited by the Monolithic 120gr GMX, which is longer than some of the 140gr cup and core bullets. That limits case capacity due to intrusion, and also resists being driven into the lands more than cup and core bullets. His stated load is well under max, which is likely why we didnt see the extractor blow out, primer intact, case head looking ok other than the failure in the side of the brass.
Again, I'm simply stating the more powder and the closer to the max load, the higher the likelihood of a kaboom. In particular if the case has more unsupported brass than normal. You can't just rule it out because it's not considered "max". Other conditions might compromise the brass, such as being less supported, to take a load that is fine to a load that kabooms. I don't view things digitally and absolute here. There is a spectrum of the likelihood of a failure. More powder, more kaboom and more chance of kaboom. Less powder, less kaboom and chance of kaboom. It's that simple to me.
LRRPF52 Wrote:Everything really points to excessive headspace. No other variable is needed or indicated from what Im seeing here, not having the components in my hands.
I'm still leaving the same failure models on the table here. I'll add excessive headspace back to it, but again I don't see any numerical quantification why it is more significant than the feed cone depth issue which again Bill Alexander deemed VERY important in the grendel round development whilst using Lapua brass in the process.
The three I have shown individually were the ones I could see a ridge forming on. The rest look pretty normal albeit a bit rough from the chamber. I don't see this sort of chamber imprint on the other brass I've inspected (FC, Starline, Hornady) so far. My bet is the odin chamber is a bit rougher than the Faxon or PSA. I also looked back at notes showing that I had checked headspace with the Odin BCG and bolt in the Faxon barrel (passed) but I don't see notes that I ever checked the Odin bolt in the Odin barrel. Doh! I probably expected it to be OK as it was a matched barrel and BCG/Bolt purchased. It will be interesting to see if I get similar extraction issues and/or brass markings with the Monster bolt I am replacing it with (that has passed headspace).
BTW - thanks for all the deep dives here folks - I'm learning a ton about both the AR platform as well as the Grendel. Good stuff!
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.
LRRPF52 Wrote:When seasoned, older reloaders who put high load counts on brass say, This one gets up to 50 reloads and others dont even approach that., thats a pretty huge indicator of the quality of one brass over others.
Early-on with 6.5 Grendel, we had guys on the forum who got 20 or more loads with Lapua brass, shot the headstamps out. No other brass that Im aware of has achieved that many loads.
When I have shot and reloaded Federal 6.5 Grendel brass, for example, I lost primer pockets within 2 loads when shooting through the AR-15.
Interestingly, this did not happen when shooting and loading it through the Howa Mini bolt-action rifle. Even with me loading well over 1-2 grains higher than book loads in the AR-15, the primer pockets stayed nice and tight in the Howa with Federal brass.
Hornady brass has been the next-best performer for me in terms of longevity, number of reloads.
Other seasoned reloaders here on the forum have reported as many as 8-12 loads. Depending on what dies, pressures, gas system lengths, and chambers are used, you might see that brass become unusable at 5 loads.
This catastrophic failure happened with new Lapua brass on his first firing of that batch, #41 of 50 hand-loaded cartridges.
That brings me to the question, can we see the heads of the 40 other fired pieces of brass if we havent seen them already?
I understand all of this, but it doesn't necessarily mean that Lapua brass can't have a lot of reloads AND also it could have contributed to the issue. And it goes back to an earlier post where I stated that brass that is more malleable and elastic but also has lower hardness and yield strength than Lapua could have been a better brass in this specific failure case which is partially due to the M16 style feed cone depth issue. As stated before, a harder and higher yield strength brass is going to be more brittle than one that is more malleable and elastic with also lower hardness and yield strength. And so under extreme forces (i.e. pressure) the more brittle brass can simply snap and rupture, but a more malleable and elastic brass could stretch a little bit more than the harder and stronger one. This is entirely theoretically possible while also the same brass doesn't last as long with subsequent reloads.
And all this is in line with Lapua brass lasting so long! It literally resists deformation better than other brass, so it can be reused more often. I totally don't doubt this, but...I can also say that it could also be more susceptible to failing like it did than other brass as well. Due to it being slightly more brittle than other brass. With all metals and alloys you get this duality at times. There's no perfect one vs another. When you use one you likely have to make a tradeoff or compensation that another metal would provide. But then that metal might also have a different compromise.
I digress here but the making of samurai swords and carbon steel is a good example. Too much carbon and the steel becomes really hard, but then it is more brittle (less elastic). Take away some of the carbon, and it becomes less hard and more malleable and elastic. Same thing is going on with brass at different alloy compositions.
Understood, only a few cases are showing expansion forward of the web.
Here's a thought. Sheridan sell a rifle gauge that has been reamed to SAAMI spec. Lyman and others tend to be a bit generous in diameter to ensure all cases measure longitudinal headspace, and not give false longitudinal indications because fat bodies are jamming in the mouth. If your enlarged spent cases do not seat fully to the shoulder in a Sheridan gauge then there is too much slop in the breech.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]19143[/ATTACH]
Those Lapua cases have had countless firings, at least over 10 each.
(Disclosure: I am not Sheridan Manufacturing but was given those two gauges for comment).
09-28-2022, 01:56 AM (This post was last modified: 09-28-2022, 01:59 AM by DeNinny.)
LRRPF52 Wrote:Were just talking ideas here, not picking anyone person apart, so be assured this isnt personal.
Agreed and appreciated. LOL I work with all kinds of engineers and technical people, and trust me they all can have differing opinions about diagnosing the same problem. This exchange is a typical day at work for me. The only (obvious) rule for everyone is to use data and the laws of science to back your position. And be open to being mistaken on your own understanding.
Also, being new here and coming from Reddit, there is absolutely no way I could get technical over there like I am here. Over here, I'm with my people. We are all part of the Horde and so we are all on the same team! And we don't even have to agree on everything. That's no fun.
LRRPF52 Wrote:5.56x45 is loaded to higher pressures than 6.5 Grendel. The case geometry for 6.5 Grendel is considerably different than 5.56x45, which required numerous design changes in the bolt, extractor, tighter tolerances held on the barrel extension (due to warping from heat-treating that is fine with 5.56 but not Grendel), magazines, etc. Ive had pretty extensive discussions with Bill about this offline over the years. The things he covered are aspects of the rifle and cartridge he learned the hard way during development, on top of formal engineer training and experience with his prior work. Its a fascinating story really.
None of these design nuances are secret, since anyone could order AA Barrel/bolt combos and rifles to inspect if they wanted to back then.
Understood on all. The 5.56 cartridge is also smaller diameter than grendel, so absolutely it will withstand higher pressures than grendel (all other things equal). The lower radius and lower size to brass volume ratio makes it stronger on a pound-for-pound basis. Again it's like an archway analogy that I mentioned before.
So with this I'm sorry I stated that the grendel round had to be designed to withstand higher pressures. That was incorrectly phrased. What I really meant is that its less curved case wall due to higher diameter needed to have more support. Hence, the Bill Alexander feed cone redesign. I hope we are on the same page about it now. Again, I never cared about the pressure itself. I only cared about what Bill Alexander was addressing when he redesigned the feed cone.
LRRPF52 Wrote:I provided numerical data, namely the fact that millions of 6.5 Grendel Lapua brass and ammunition have been manufactured and fired and reloaded from 2004-present.
The data I'm looking for here is the failure (or lack thereof) data for Lapua brass used with M16 style feed cone barrels in AR15 platforms. And I'm also looking for comparison data on this amongst all the various grendel brass manufacturers. I always need the comparison data! Not just one manufacturer's.
LRRPF52 Wrote:It doesnt matter what the metallurgical details are when we can see the actual performance.
And again I don't see comparative actual performance data under the specific condition of this failure. And in lieu of not having this data, the next best thing to me is to have the specific materials science parameters that I mentioned...Young's modulus, shear modulus, hardness, yield strength.
And I know all this data is a tall order and will likely never be produced. And this is why I'm leaving the conclusion open ended. I'm not saying it's definitely Lapua brass as a contributing issue, and I'm not not saying it too!
09-28-2022, 02:05 AM (This post was last modified: 09-28-2022, 02:21 AM by lazyengineer.)
Klem Wrote:Lazy,
Your statistical conclusion is flawed.
I have had no Lapua kabooms...ever. How does that reconcile with your experience?
That is a staggering assessment. My Rocket has not crashed with my 0-rings from the same manufacture. Therefore the 0-rings are safe.
That is literally the allegory just stated.
There seems to be a misplacement of interpretation. This isn't about you. It's not about your practices, your barrels, or your brass. Your practice and example is not representational of the general population - as we have seen; 3 times now. There is a defensiveness being taking here that some peoples personal decisions to run Lapua safely in their systems, is somehow under attack. It's not; and it is highly unlikely you will experience problems, as your practices and equipment likely are better managed and controlled. Meanwhile, the rest of the general population, who aren't you, have blown up 3 times now. My concern is there is a refusal to see the obvious trend; and it's done by a defensive reaction to personal individual experiences. It's a blind refusal to see the obvious, based really in truth on that shocking analysis I just quoted - that I NEVER expected to see posted like that.
Also, please correctly run the statistics on the odds of 3 Kaboom's of 6.5 Grendel in the last 12 months; with all 3 to exclusively involve only Lapua brass. I look forward to seeing what the odds are of that by your assessment.
stonehog Wrote:More photos. I was only able to find the slightest ridge forming on 2 cases. #9, and #36. #41 was the kaboom.
Assuming you didn't have significantly different loads in these rounds, these pictures indicate you were pushing the pressure limits of this brass...with all the other issues in effect as well...deep feed cone, deep bolt face, headspace, etc. You were close to the failure limit, but not in massive excess of it. So only a few rounds instead of all of them deformed beyond the norm.
Also the pics still keep heat on the table too. As you were shooting, the barrel was heating up which was heating up the rounds and the starting temperature of the combustion. Towards the end of your batch the barrel would be warmer, so your risk of failure kept going up.
stonehog Wrote:The three I have shown individually were the ones I could see a ridge forming on. The rest look pretty normal albeit a bit rough from the chamber. I don't see this sort of chamber imprint on the other brass I've inspected (FC, Starline, Hornady) so far. My bet is the odin chamber is a bit rougher than the Faxon or PSA. I also looked back at notes showing that I had checked headspace with the Odin BCG and bolt in the Faxon barrel (passed) but I don't see notes that I ever checked the Odin bolt in the Odin barrel. Doh! I probably expected it to be OK as it was a matched barrel and BCG/Bolt purchased. It will be interesting to see if I get similar extraction issues and/or brass markings with the Monster bolt I am replacing it with (that has passed headspace).
BTW - thanks for all the deep dives here folks - I'm learning a ton about both the AR platform as well as the Grendel. Good stuff!
Do you think you could take a measurement of the depth of the head deformation? Basically what is the distance from the "line" to where the bolt starts? This will be a measure of the exposed and unsupported brass wall. With your actual deformed brass we can determine the feed cone depth!
It's interesting that your other brass doesn't have the same imprint. Only the Lapua. Hmmm...
And I totally appreciate you sharing all this! I'm learning and enjoying this thread too.
DeNinny Wrote:I understand. I made the point because BluntForceTrauma stated that there is no spec on it. And I'm just saying that *if* it did have a spec, then customers could reject a barrel based on it and also the manufacturer would have more incentive to check and make sure their barrel wasn't effed up before it made it out of the production line. Another way of looking at it is without a spec then there's less quality control over the making of it. And you wouldn't be able to hold a manufacturer accountable if they effed one up.
I hear you. I was more using your comment as a base for mine - there's a lot of mental masturbation in this thread. Lack of a spec for the feed cones is really more of a SAAMI issue - I don't blame Bill Alexander for keeping his proprietary to maximize revenue from his efforts.
What would be useful is if the OP was able to get a picture of a sized case in the Odin chamber and in the chamber of one of his other barrels. I know that's extremely difficult, but it would be very telling.
lazyengineer Wrote:Also, please correctly run the statistics on the odds of 3 Kaboom's of 6.5 Grendel in the last 12 months; with all 3 to exclusively involve only Lapua brass. I look forward to seeing what the odds are of that by your assessment.
...Lapua is unsafe in your loads, but not mine? Conclusion:
1. Lapua is unsafe.
2. Your handloading is unsafe.
Klem Wrote:...Lapua is unsafe in your loads, but not mine? Conclusion:
1. Lapua is unsafe.
2. Your handloading is unsafe.
(Hey, you did ask)
This is pointless.
Kaboom 1 - Lapua in an AR15 with an Odin BBL by one user
Kaboom 2 - Lapua in a bolt action rifle by another user
Kaboom 3 - Lapua in an AR15 with a PSA BBL by yet another user
All other brass: No Kaboom.
Lapua represents a small portion of reloading brass in use; and has an engineering aspect different from all others, at the location of Kaboom's
I did not say it was Conclusion 2 - I just pointed out the logical conclusions.
You have had three Lapua kabooms in 12 months while I have not had any in 30 years. I did ask you to reconcile the difference given you are blaming the manufacturer and not entertaining it could be you (and 'friends'). If you are not going to reconcile it by stating the obvious then again, please, stop polluting the thread by involving the public in blame-shifting.
09-28-2022, 03:50 AM (This post was last modified: 09-28-2022, 03:53 AM by lazyengineer.)
Klem Wrote:Lazy,
I did not say it was Conclusion 2 - I just pointed out the logical conclusions.
You have had three Lapua kabooms in 12 months while I have not had any in 30 years. I did ask you to reconcile the difference given you are blaming the manufacturer and not entertaining it could be you (and 'friends'). If you are not going to reconcile it by stating the obvious then again, please, stop polluting the thread by involving the public in blame-shifting.
So... you are saying bad reloaders pick Lapua? I wonder what the statistical odds are of all 3 of the kabooms in the last year are, of only being Lapua?
lazyengineer Wrote:So... you are saying bad reloaders pick Lapua? I wonder what the statistical odds are of all 3 of the kabooms in the last year are, of only being Lapua?
Significant in your case - insignificant in the wider community.
Can you please accept that one possibility is that you are responsible for your own kabooms, so we can move on.
