These were 30-06 cases headstamp SUPER SPEED 30 G1906. They were 220gr bullets.
Not sure if they were factory loads or reloads.
Picked them up at an IRS auction earlier this year. Everything was in factory boxes, and they didn't auction any reloading equipment, but that doesn't mean these were not reloaded.
I only had a half a box worth of these particular rounds and shot them all, I shot some others after these without any issues.
It's not the rifle, I inspected and the chamber looks fine.
The rifle I shot them out of is Remington Model 700.
These two cases ejected looking like this.
Just bad cases or maybe hot reloads?

Boy those are some OLD (brittle) cases. I say simple metal fatigue that found a small consistent weak spot without doing further observation/investigation.

Appears to be a failuire of the brass. The fact that two cases experience identical failures leads me to believe it is inherent in that batch of brass. I have shot some pre WW II RWS 8x68S ammo and have never experienced any case failures.
By the way that is real old 30-06 ammo. I don't remember when the Winchester eliminated the 30G 1906 designation on their cartridges.

I once got a similar failure in a new .45-70 case, about 2/3 of the way up the case wall.

Also, check your rifle's chamber. I figure you'll find two burned spots from the propellant gases escaping from the cases.

My first thought when I saw the ejected cases at the range was the brass failed.
I knew it was old 30-06 ammo.
I separated all the cases with those headstamps out, I have no intention of reloading them if the brass is prone to fail.

If you didnt shoot all put on gb or aa may surprize you what they ar worth.. also clean gun that was crosive primers

Metal fatigue my foot. Why do people offer opinions when they do not know what they are talking about? These cartridges are almost certainly new, not reloaded. The cause is a manufacturing defect. This is a dangerous failure, the kind that hurt people. "Super Speed" was, I think, made by Winchester. Too bad you shot them, I think they might have had some collector value.

quote:

Originally posted by 2tonicP220:
Boy those are some OLD (brittle) cases. I say simple metal fatigue that found a small consistent weak spot without doing further observation/investigation.

I'm not going to waste my time explaining metal fatigue because there are volumes of information available to anyone with a computer. If you knew more than just the name "metal fatigue" you would know that it is not involved.

Geez, in such a huff it took two posts... Relax Francis.

OK pal, lets assume "work hardening" did not produce the flaw, as I said it (pressure) found a consistent weak spot i.e. DEFECT in the brass... Figured anyone would get it, you didn't. Now genius, take your shitty attitude back to your metal fatigue research concerning takeoff and landing cycles of 747's

I have shot my reloads with that 220 bullet,you have to back way off the powder.That bullet is very long and has lots of drag,I had a case or two come apart ,leaving the other half in the chamber.I have no pic's and it was way before the internet.

In military ammo inspection terminology, that is a "k" split; considered hazardous.
They were likely due to faulty cases, either a seamed batch of brass or a burr on the drawing die or punch.

It would be interesting to see the inside (i.e. saw in half) of the failed cases and an unfired one from the same batch.

That's really a "neat failure". It's almost like there was a seam, imperfection or thinner material on the inside of the case when it was formed. You can see the hot gasses escaped almost immediately (fore and aft) and melted the brass (no signs of high pressure). I would suspect a material defect in the brass during forming or a bad alloy but it really doesn't look like a pressure failure. Maybe the melting of the brass took away the signs of the crack/material defect? Typically, over pressurization failures will look something like this...

Regardless, I'm stumped and impressed....

I'm not an expert (Just 7 years of college and 10 years as a practicing engineer) but...
I think the confusion in earlier posts is that a fatigue failure would imply that there is cyclical/repeated loading. This shouldn't be the case for a one time powder/gas "explosion". A cartridge case always yields when it is fired. That's why you need a chamber to contain it and a sizing die to reform it when reloading. This is also why annealing will extend the life of the catridge (since it's deformed each time it is fired within the chamber). A failure due to stress/work hardening will typically appear like the pipe above.

quote:

Too bad you shot them, I think they might have had some collector value

There were only nine of them and no box.
The ones I'm keeping is the box of Peter Rustless 30-06. Only 18 rds. Peters headstamps. Box is even in decent condition.

Franque needs to take his attitude, and 1/2 vast knowledge, back to the other forum. Brass WILL age harden, no mechanical working needed. Metallurgy was more by guess and by gosh when those cases were made, 80 to 100 years ago. Shame you shot them, lots of collectors would liked to have had them.

quote:

Originally posted by Watergoat:
Franque needs to take his attitude, and 1/2 vast knowledge, back to the other forum. Brass WILL age harden, no mechanical working needed. Metallurgy was more by guess and by gosh when those cases were made, 80 to 100 years ago. Shame you shot them, lots of collectors would liked to have had them.

Say what you will, but I do believe he is correct in stating that this is not metal fatigue..

Watson is spot on!The problem is a manufaturing one-period.Will

Those look like they failed at the blow hole.

Both holes look consistent and pre-machined. Almost like a relief vent. Any unfired cartridges left to inspect? Do the expended rounds smell like ammonia?

If powder is stored in hot conditions it'll degrade and ignition could be erratic. If the original grains broke up into smaller grains, the shot would burn faster and hotter creating a large pressure spike.

The NRA Rifleman magazine has a monthly column called the "Dope Bag" where you can submit questions and pictures to a gaggle of experts. They've answered some pretty strange questions in the past. Cool mystery.

quote:

Originally posted by 2tonicP220:
Geez, in such a huff it took two posts... Relax Francis.

OK pal, lets assume "work hardening" did not produce the flaw, as I said it (pressure) found a consistent weak spot i.e. DEFECT in the brass... Figured anyone would get it, you didn't. Now genius, take your shitty attitude back to your metal fatigue research concerning takeoff and landing cycles of 747's

quote:

Originally posted by Watergoat:
Franque needs to take his attitude, and 1/2 vast knowledge, back to the other forum. Brass WILL age harden, no mechanical working needed. Metallurgy was more by guess and by gosh when those cases were made, 80 to 100 years ago. Shame you shot them, lots of collectors would liked to have had them.

My attitude is if you talk bullshit I may point it out. A big problem on forums is people who don't have a clue rendering their worthless opinion and making it much harder for people to get reliable information. If you don't know what you are talking about, keep your trap shut. Why do you want to display your ignorance?

OK Francis, even if someone is completely wrong, your complete lack of class and full asshole demeanor really makes you THE expert Keep on screaming like a baby, it just makes you look so smart... Guess Internet tough guys can get away with this.

Now take your rude, overly emotional ass back to all your critical research, and quit being a dick here.