Kaboom

[safeinOhio]

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2009/12/03/5/0301000000AEN20091203008500315F.HTML


SEOUL/POCHEON, South Korea, Dec. 3 (Yonhap) -- One researcher was killed and five others injured Thursday when a shell exploded inside a gun at a live-fire range northeast of Seoul during a performance test by state-run arms technology institutes, officials said.

   The explosion occurred at 11:32 a.m. at a military range in the city of Pocheon, 46 kilometers from Seoul, while researchers were test-firing shells from a 155-millimeter gun, the officials said.

   A 40-year-old worker for the Agency for Defense Development (ADD) was killed and two others seriously injured, police and defense officials said. A 31-year-old underwent surgery to suture both his arms while shrapnel blanketed the body of a 36-year-old researcher.

[eqfan592]

1. While this does seem like an interesting story...

...does it really belong in the "guns" forum? A 155 millimeter howitzer isn't really comparable to the sort of "guns" we're talking about on these forums usually ;)

[msongs]

2. well the US constitution says "arms" not guns nt

[eqfan592]

3. This is true...

...in fact, private ownership of cannons was fairly common in those days, especially for those who owned their own ships, so you do make a point there, msongs. Thanks! It takes guts for somebody to come down on the "pro-private ownership of 155mm howitzers" side of things as you just did! ;)

[benEzra]

11. Arms that can be kept and BORNE by an individual...

if you can tote a 155mm howitzer around by yourself, you probably don't need small arms. :toast:

[PavePusher]

18. You probably already have 'large arms'....

I'm here all month folks, please tip your wait staff....

[rd_kent]

22. Wow, msongs, I thought you were a rabid anti-RKBA person, but you really turned around.

Welcome to the side of facts, logic and reason.

While I don't think the average Joe needs to have a 155mm howitzer, I applaud your stance to uphold the Constitution. Can we count on your support in future debates as well?

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Arms are not Ordnance.

Crew served weapons are generally agreed upon by all sources relevant to the 2nd Amendment as not being covered. Not that private parties didn't sometimes own ordnance anyway, but it was extremely rare, and not protected by the letter of the law.

[safeinOhio]

4. It says

"Where to post various gun-related topics"

story said gun. Looked like the only forum to go with.

[eqfan592]

5. I hear ya safe :)

And I'm not trying to get on your case or anything. :) It's just a bit unusual for in here is all. But it is an interesting (and tragic) story, so I can't say I mind it being here at all.

[safeinOhio]

6. They must have got it on film

would be a million hits on youtube.

[aikoaiko]

7. It would be nice if you would comment on your linked story.

Is it a comment on gun policy? Just an interesting story about an accident involving military equipment? A story about a relatively rate event? Do up you think civilians should be able to own this with a NICS check?

:shrug:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. They already can own them with an NICS check.

And a $200 cheque as well. ;)

[one-eyed fat man]

10. No stamp for these cannon

Steen Cannon, Ashland, Kentucky



It will throw a 12 pound shot as nicely now as it did in 1841. Custom cast in iron or bronze, full scale, and fully operational, as much as your wallet can stand. Under Federal law, they are not regulated as guns since they are muzzle loading and of pre-1898 design.

[jeepnstein]

14. I've been wondering about those guys.

I think that is the same bunch I ran into testing a barrel back in the late eighties. Nice folks.

[one-eyed fat man]

17. Nice clips here

If you would like to get an idea of the effectiveness of guns like this at 2000 yards against wooden sailing vessels here is live fire footage of tests conducted using guns from the Brig Niagara against full scale mock up of an 1812 era warships's gun deck.

http://www.brigniagara.org/Fightingsaildeck.htm

(For the historically stupid, privateers were in common use by the United States through the Civil War. There will be those who will fill their drawers when they realize a "Letter of Marque" is authorization for a private contractor to engage in warfare, aka "Blackwater in Boats"..........and a power Congress still holds.

:rofl:

[jeepnstein]

19. One of the founders of our little town...

was an artillery man in the War of 1812. He got to be a Colonel because he could afford six cannon. These were big, fat, French guns and I think I know where four of them are today. One was destroyed during a 21 gun salute a few years after the war.

Owning artillery wasn't uncommon until it got really complex and expensive. I can't imagine the time and money it would take for a private individual to maintain one modern artillery piece these days, much less six of them.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. Rifling repair and headspacing adjustment, hydraulic recoil management, reloading of shells...

I'd have to imagine it takes a crew to maintain modern* artillery, much less haul it around.

* modern meaning up through the 80's. I gotta believe truely modern artillery is simly too complex and automated to be supported/serviced outside of the military structure.

[one-eyed fat man]

25. Nope

Fire control, fuses, things that have to with laying the gun have benefited from the revolution in electronics etc, but as far the gun part goes, there has been no real quantum leap in gun tube manufacture, metallurgy, or ammunition. Micro electronics have enabled artillery shells to be built that can home in on laser designated targets. But the rest of the gun, loading, crew drills have changed little since the first hydraulic recoil systems came into widespread use on the eve of World War One.

Not much difference in the "service of the piece" but GPS and computers mean that a fire unit no longer has to be a battery with a fire direction center run by the XO to compute the data to put on the guns.

[Katya Mullethov]

21. Their links are dead

But this one works .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfsuIaTU92Y

[safeinOhio]

9. Safety deserves more attention

I think policy is becoming a dead horse. Argued to death here with few minds changed. It is fun to argue and search for facts that support ones view, however, the safety of weapons, gun ranges and how mental pathology all effect the image of gun owners is something to be mindful of. Every story has a lesson.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

12. I don't think any "gun-safety" rules were broken here.

Sounds like a failed design or componet in the gun they were testing.
If anything, it was a proceedural safety issue. Perhaps they should have been behind shielding while testing.
Who knows... it may have just been a freak accident (stress fatigue or something).

[safeinOhio]

13. I don't know why, but

I pictured some guy watching the test by looking down the barrel.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. Is it a firearm safety rule violation if the gun WAS pointed in a safe direction

until some idiot walked in front of it?
It's a howitzer... it's not like you can just "keep it pointed in a safe direction". LOL.

Kinda like hiking while hunting with the guy in front of you and his break-action shotgun over his shoulder.
Sure, the action is open and there's no shells in it... it must be safe. But walking behind him still feel uneasy.
Just imagine how soldiers in convoys feel, following the truck in front towing a howizter pointed right @ you.
rofl

[one-eyed fat man]

26. Premature in-bore failure

Artillery fuses are designed and constructed to be "bore-safe", that is the payload of the shell is not supposed to be able to go off until after it has been launched and well away from the gun and crew. Like any machinery, no matter how highly reliable, it is not absolute. And as pointed out elsewhere, when you have an "aw-shit" involving 20 kilograms of propellant and 80 kilograms of TNT it gets to be a pretty spectacular.

[SteveM]

27. Are you contributing to "the image of gun owners" by floating "mental pathology?"

Seems like you have some kind of public health outlook that is worth examining, even if it is one with the haziest of borders. Frankly, in these pages I have seen little beyond the frisbee-toss of psychological terms to glean any clarity about "mental pathologies" affecting the "image" of gun owners.

Please be aware that when policy approaches begin to peter out, "safety" is a common fallback; sorta like "national security." But since we are on this, what demonstrable problems do you see with ranges (please use data to suggest their lack of "safety"), and "weapons." (NOTE: I am aware of at least one model of Glock semi-auto pistol which has an alleged safety problem.)

[Caliman73]

28. Safety does deserve the utmost attention

As it does in all human activity aremed or unarmed. I would argue however, that weapon safety, range safety, and the psychological make up of owners is about as much in control of the media as it is in the hands of owners. Violent crime rates have fallen steadily for several decades, but the media reporting crime has risen by over 400%. The gun owners portrayed in the media are not those who handle their arms safely and virtually unnoticed by the rest of the population. The gun owners portrayed in the media are those who misuse their arms whether by neglect or criminality. Every story has a lesson, but also remember that all information has a bias.

[taurus145]

16. Ouch!

It's tragic to be sure.

I talked with a former redleg buddy of mine about this. He said that there was possibly some breach of safety protocol during the test.

He said that it sounded as though there was a failure to fire and insufficient time was given for the fuse to cook off before inspection. According to him, that's not an uncommon occurrence. As for the split gun, it could have been metal fatigue, a missed void in the cast, or any of a number of other things.

As a final thought, he said that he once saw a howitzer (also 155) split by a "dud" with a slow fuse that detonated as it was being extracted from the breech.

Not enough information to tell for sure. In his words, "When shit happens with artillery, it's always bad shit."

There's an old saying about munitions workers and handlers being "blew-eyed" after an accident - "One eye blew one way, the other blew another."

[slackmaster]

20. That's a big gun

What does this story have to do with the designated topics for this forum?