Yes, and NEF is not only a quality brand (as a part of Marlin), but the design is a minor modification of the H&R Topper which has been around for decades. .223 is also a very popular chambering for it, as are a number of much higher pressure rounds. If it can not survive 5.56mm milsurp ammunition pressures, then how can it handle.30-06? I ask that out of pure curiosity, as a friend has a .30-06 barrel for his, and has owned it for several years.

I refer you to my post. This is not an issue inherent in the design of the firearm. This was most likely an ammunition failure, possibly caused by over loaded or low quality cases. The odds of a quality control failure in the production of the firearm and barrel are remote, but not outside of the realm of consideration. Another potential is a problem that I've seen with VERY old Toppers, where the action seems to be locked, but isn't, which causes the action to open during firing; while it is extremely unlikely in this case, due to the age of the firearm, it is possible that there was a lock failure due to a malformed part or maintence on the part of the prior owner.

The reason why I say this NOT a 5.56mm vs .223 Rem issue is becuase of the sheer number of of these guns which have been fitted with the .223 Remington barrel, and virtual gaurentee that they will be shot with milsurp ammo (inexpensive gun, inexpensive practice ammo- notice the similiarities?), means that we would have heard about this long before now if the NEF actions and barrels weren't able to handle the milspec ammo.

I said "just about" and "should", becuase there are some very light weight and/or lesser quality frames and mechanisms that have no purpose even trying to handle the .223, such as the various derringers made for it, and becuase some of the vary early .223s and .308s were on the market before the details of the military ammunition was widely available to the public. It also may apply to the various .223 break action conversions for the 1911 that have been produced. BUT I'll go so far as to say ANY rifle chambered for the .223 Remington cartridge manufactured in the past 25 years, and having met approval of both federal and industry regulatory agencies for commercial sale, can and will fire the 5.56x45mm NATO specification round (even if you have to hand feed it), baring catastrophic and freak failure of the cartridge and/or the gun due to issues arising from insufficent quality control. Any time a manual says that you should not fire military specification ammunition, it's in there due to the insistance of lawyers.

While there may be some failures to ignite (due to harder than standard primers), to feed (silly, over long bullets, but that would apply only to a VERY old .223, and never to a break action) or to properly eject (due to very slight case swelling, which would be no worse than experinced on the H&K roller locks), when using military ammunition, the firearm should be able to safely handle that. Other than those points, the whole "military vs similiar civilian" ammunition is anachronism for modern firearms, and mostly stems from when the military had not yet adopted smokeless powder as a propellent, but the sporting shooters had. It was furthered when sporting rifles were produced for the .30-03 cartridge, which not only had a round nosed bullet but also a significantly lower chamber pressure than the .30-06 that used the same case. (A similiar issue led to the .development of the.32 Special, vs .30-30 which uses the very same case.) When fired out of a well made bolt action, such as the Spingfield, they were fine, but when fired out of a rebarreled Krag or one of the many cheap (not inexpensive, but truely cheap) breakactions of the era, the .30-06 would have an extremely negative effect on the action. But for most modern production weapons, this issue is mostly an urban legend which the lawyers keep alive.

Martin's accident is a fluke, but the point you are looking at hasn't been an issue for decades in all but a tiny number of cases. Any action which the manufacturer says will handle .30-06 is not one of those cases.

Here's the exact situation, with images:

The NEF Handi-Rifle is clearly marked .223 and the cartridges I bought were also .223 - not match-grade, just some generic .223 from Sportsmans guide:


I checked the barrel for obstructions, there were none.
I inserted the round into the chamber (this is a break-action gun), snapped it shut, made sure it was locked, cocked the weapon, got steady on my target, and pulled the trigger.
The blast wasn't right, and of course, there was that mist of brass on my right cheek.

The case ruptured quite completely:

Part of it fell right out, the rest needed to be pried out with pliers.

You can see pretty well where the firing pin SLAMMED into the cartridge - there's quite a deep impact there.



In looking over the gun back home. I can't tell if the break action lock was a factor or not - I noticed that once after I snapped it shut and checked that it was locked, the next time I handled the weapon, the action opened! Now I can't be sure if what I thought was a loaded, locked breech was in fact a problem. Although the gun was locked after the cartridge blew apart, I wonder if it somehow came unlocked during ignition of powder?

Anyway, that's about all the detail I can give, short of the weather at the time of the accident.

Martin,

It may be an optical illusion, but apart from the case being ruptured, it looks swollen out, as if the chamber is grossly wrong (too large - not for .223). Adding to that thought, that's an unusual case rupture UNLESS the chamber is jugged out.

The firing pin indent seems a little large (diameter) for a caliber that uses a small rifle primer, but perhaps all NEF frames use the same firing pin (?) That looks like an indent left on a shotshell primer, FWIW. <shrug> Shouldn't make an difference, other than being overkill. Primer was not pierced from what I can see (no scorch marks radiating from the primer / primer pocket area)

Sounds like the lock-up may be twitchy but no way for me to tell without the rifle in-hand. But you would have noticed for certain if the action was not locked when it fired, even with a .223.

Is the ammo loaded with 55gr or 62gr bullets? What is the twist rate on the rifling (you can check that with a tight patch and a cleaning rod)? These are clues, depending on the answers.

At this point I am very suspicious of the chamber dimensions.

Please let us know what you find out from a gunsmith.

Regards,

Tom

No, the case isn't swollen out, but it looks that way.

Wow.

I've never seen a cartidge (in person or photo) that looked that bad. I agree with Tom, I wouldn't touch the rifle until it has been gone over by a smith, AND I'd contact NEF. I'd also call Sportsmans Guide, becuase this is just freakish. Even with a badly dimensioned chamber, I can't imagine this happening without something being funny with the ammo unless your chamber unlocked.