Responsible howitzer owner shells house 5km away...

[The Don]

I have to say as a gunner who regularly uses 105mm howitzers (well, to be honest, I haven't fired one or commanded one since '95 - I've had other duties in the unit since) I'm calling BS on the owner's "safety" measures.

When wingers are fired by professionals there is an investigation to find out where the screw-up occurred - here in the Great White North the drill is to get the crew manning the piece to step back from the postions in action while the TSM or the BSM check the lay of the piece, check the ammunition (counting charge bags to see how much powder was used) and comparing the data on the sights to what the Command Post ordered. We also have some fairly serious safety rules about ricochet, etc that I'm fairly certain from the news article aren't being followed.

Personally, I can see a number of outcomes here:

a. The insurer for the range is going to do a huge re-evaluation of the insurance coverage of the range in light of this accident and the inevitable lawsuit and settlement;
b. The owner of this piece is going to find it prohibitive to shoot due to the now exhorbitant costs of using the range, leading to the owner selling it or deactivating it;
c. Any calls to prohibit the civilian ownership of crew served artillery by civilians will be met with some activists screaming that this is the thin edge of the wedge and "da gummint's cummin' fer our guns!"

Will this mean that if artillery owners no longer use them on insured ranges (due to the prohibitive cost) and might instead just use them, uninsured, in the countryside at large ?

 

[tsig]

While I do not have my ricochet templates here, I do know that there is a danger of ricochet up to 8km (5 miles) when fired at maximum charge from either a C3 or LG1 howiter. It is certainly possible for the round to ricochet when fired at a flat trajectory (up to 45 degrees is considered "flat" in the artillery world.

I've seen weird things in 28 years of long distance landscaping - rounds shooting longer or shorter than was the intent of the fire orders, considerable deviation in bearing, and some ricochets. So, it's possilble that the round skipped off course and went towards the house - it is also possible that the yahoos firing the gun didn't bother to check to see if there was an error in their lay that there was no housing out to the maximum range of their piece.

The article refers to this as a 105mm howitzer - which could mean an M101 or M102 howitzer, but they also called it a 3.7 inch, which is about 90mm, which doesn't correspond to any US howitzer I'm familiar with, so unless someone's got a pic of the offending piece I'm at a loss to ID it.

Additionally, I'm wondering how the person managed to get enough propellant to fire the round - commercial powder of the sort used in small arms is different from the stuff used in artillery, and it is not sold to non-militaries. This would have caused our "highly trained professionals" to use some other type of propellant. This could have caused some of the problems - the firing tables for any artillery piece (tables showing what elevation is needed to reach a particular range with a set charge, and the host of variables that affect a projectile in flight) are created for a particular formulation of propellant. Change the propellant and you can drastically affect the muzzle velocity of the round which of course will affect how far it goes.

Seems like the wrong charge could blow up the piece providing a real live fire experience for those around.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There was a 12-pounder* field piece, dated 1844, pointed almost directly at my house before I moved last year. From its elevation ~20 meters above my house it could have dropped balls on me without any effort. I was sometimes tempted to get up there and blast off a few rounds but, sadly, it was "corked" and would never fire again.


*It was actually a 6 pounder bored out to take a 12 pound balls. Evidently ball-size mattered to the City of Pacific, Missouri, or some previous owner.

 

[newyorkguy]

Yeah it counts. I missed some of the details of your previous posts. I was out of line; sorry about that. Ranb

No problem, I usually enjoy reading your posts. As mentioned, obviously someone who served in the military had at some point been made aware of the idea that reviewing safety procedures is required before any live fire exercise. There has been some reaction to an earlier comment I made and I think it was taken out of context.

There are some contradictions in the information conveyed by Mike Friend the owner of Mike's Auto Shoot....
Why would he need to drill trained professionals on safety?

What I was referring to was these two statements:

1. [Mike] insists the historic weapon was safely fired by professionals in a downward projection.
2. “As far as the safety end of everything, we drill every one of our shooters before it ever begins,” Friend said. “We have 30-45 minute drill.”

What I really meant was, shouldn't the safety professionals have been drilling Mike? Instead of Mike drilling them? It was meant in a lighthearted way. I suspect that Mike's comments were taken slightly out of context. I suspect comment one was in answer to, "Who fired the gun, did they know what they were doing?" Comment two was probably in answer to, "How do you handle safety Mike, what steps do you normally take?"

Of course I'm not alone in suggesting that the experts Mike had on hand were maybe not quite as expert as they are being passed off to be. I would not have thought an artillery round could ricochet three miles. The gentleman who served with an artillery unit wrote that shells can actually ricochet up to five miles. Mike was probably expecting the round would hit the target and then burrow into the ground. But given that Mike was firing dead rounds (no explosive charge) the reality that the shell could ricochet several miles should have been considered. It obviously wasn't. Mike said a ricochet was "unheard of." One of his experts should've told him, "Mike this thing might ricochet and ricochet quite a distance. How far out does your property line run?" Why they didn't discuss that with him -- or why Mike chose to ignore it if they did -- is exactly why I questioned the wisdom of allowing private ranges to fire artillery pieces in the first place. This could've had a much much worse ending.

 

[Cainkane1]

Big mistake with a big gun.

 

[I Ratant]

Is there a photo from the position of the cannon to the target to the house?

 

[Ranb]

I've seen this problem on a much smaller scale. A guy was shooting a small subsonic 50 caliber cartridge loaded with an M-17 tracer bullet. He shot low and hit something hard on the horizontal surface near the base of the berm. I watched the red tracer jump into the sky making a slight humming noise as it tumbled through the air. It was a wet day so even though the trace burns for about 15 seconds I wasn't able to find a scorch mark inside the +50 acre buffer zone where it landed.

Ranb

 

[ponderingturtle]

Big mistake with a big gun.

Minor mistake. Can happen to anyone.

You have to expect this now and then if you fire such guns.

 

[Trakar]

No problem, I usually enjoy reading your posts. As mentioned, obviously someone who served in the military had at some point been made aware of the idea that reviewing safety procedures is required before any live fire exercise. There has been some reaction to an earlier comment I made and I think it was taken out of context.

What I was referring to was these two statements:

What I really meant was, shouldn't the safety professionals have been drilling Mike? Instead of Mike drilling them? It was meant in a lighthearted way. I suspect that Mike's comments were taken slightly out of context. I suspect comment one was in answer to, "Who fired the gun, did they know what they were doing?" Comment two was probably in answer to, "How do you handle safety Mike, what steps do you normally take?"

Of course I'm not alone in suggesting that the experts Mike had on hand were maybe not quite as expert as they are being passed off to be. I would not have thought an artillery round could ricochet three miles. The gentleman who served with an artillery unit wrote that shells can actually ricochet up to five miles. Mike was probably expecting the round would hit the target and then burrow into the ground. But given that Mike was firing dead rounds (no explosive charge) the reality that the shell could ricochet several miles should have been considered. It obviously wasn't. Mike said a ricochet was "unheard of." One of his experts should've told him, "Mike this thing might ricochet and ricochet quite a distance. How far out does your property line run?" Why they didn't discuss that with him -- or why Mike chose to ignore it if they did -- is exactly why I questioned the wisdom of allowing private ranges to fire artillery pieces in the first place. This could've had a much much worse ending.

My interpretation of what happened at this event is that the owner of the artillery piece brought with him a crew of 3-4 individuals who he felt (possibly from previous experience) were competent in inspecting, setting up, and firing the artillery piece. This is who Mike is referring to as "trained professionals." Part of the event, however was to have some attendees of the event actually pull the lanyard which fires the piece. These are the individuals that they gathered together and went over a 30 minute procedure of explaining the basics of artillery emplacement, fire-mission procedures, and safety instructions.

I would be interested in how many times the artillery piece was fired that day, which firing was responsible for the round that hit the house, if there were any rounds fired after that round, and what adjustments, if any, were made after each firing?

 

[newyorkguy]

This is from The Oklahoman newspaper:

The 105 mm howitzer cannon was listed as a new attraction at the Oklahoma Full Auto Shoot and Trade Show...The two-day event is billed as a family event with a sniper shoot, armored personnel carrier rides and helicopter rides. Proceeds go to the Wyandotte Fire Department, according to the event’s website. “It’s huge,” said sheriff’s Detective Derek Derwin, referring to the military-styled field cannon. “They were used during the Vietnam War.” Link

From Grand Lake News, the local news provider, the man whose home was damaged had a grandson working at the Auto Shoot on the night in question. Homeowner Gene Kelley said, "I called him that evening and told him to find Mike Friend (the event organizer) and said 'you let him know your grandpa is one mad SOB.'" Kelley said Friend arrived soon after and helped look for the projectile, which they found. It's still not clear who actually fired the gun, but Mike Friend is not the gun owner. The gun was advertised as being part of the show.

"The man who owns the gun, he's a stand-up guy," Friend said. "He was so sick about it he could barely stand."

Friend went on to say that the range does "a great deal of safety training" but are "looking at ways to make the range even safer."

"We're going to have to build some sort of bullet trap for the bigger stuff," Friend said. "The main thing is no one was hurt." Friend went on to say that he'd prefer not to ban artillery from the annual shoot, but if he's told that's what has to happen, then he'll comply. Link

The local sheriff's office has notified the county District Attorney's Office (Ottawa County), and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms field office in Tulsa, to determine what legal action might be taken. An officer with the sheriff's department reportedly told Gene Kelley it "might be a while" before everything is straightened out. Kelley says when everything is settled he'd like to have the shell.

 

[BenBurch]

Wasn't there a Gomer Pyle episode like this?

 

[newyorkguy]

"We're going to have to build some sort of bullet trap for the bigger stuff." Mike Friend.

Yeah, good luck with that Mike.

 

[Trakar]

Wasn't there a Gomer Pyle episode like this?

I don't recall the Gomer Pyle episode but I do remember what looked like a civil war (or earlier!) cannon on a Mayberry RFD episode (I believe - might have been one of Don Knotts' big screen shows) being accidentally shot and taking out a church steeple or some such.

 

[Border Reiver]

Thanks again. I wouldn't have thought it was possible. I can't find a photo on-line of the gun (I'd love to see it) but I did find a photo (shown below) which is supposed to be of the spent round. Fairly banged up but still intact. Maybe Border Reiver can get a clue exactly what kind of gun was fired from the round?

[qimg]http://i1336.photobucket.com/albums/o646/tommyguy0421/JREF/MikesRound_zps885c284f.jpg[/qimg]

Looking at the pic, it is certainly the right basic shape for a 105 round. However, I can tell that it is homemade:

a. the projectile is not painted, the ones used by miltaries are;
b. The driving band is not a separate piece swaged onto the projectile, but appears to have been cast or machined onto the projectile; and
c. There's no fuze, and due to the picture I cannot tell if one could be attached to the tip of the projectile, so the projectile appears to be blunt at the tip.

I question the wisdom in allowing functional artillery pieces to be in private hands at all, but that's the Canadian in me, or it could be the simple recognition of the inherent risks of the activity and the absolute fear of trying to explain the insurance premiums to my wife that cause me to question the owner of both the piece and the range's ability to conduct proper risk management.

 

[jimbob]

Looking at the pic, it is certainly the right basic shape for a 105 round. However, I can tell that it is homemade:

a. the projectile is not painted, the ones used by miltaries are;
b. The driving band is not a separate piece swaged onto the projectile, but appears to have been cast or machined onto the projectile; and
c. There's no fuze, and due to the picture I cannot tell if one could be attached to the tip of the projectile, so the projectile appears to be blunt at the tip.

I question the wisdom in allowing functional artillery pieces to be in private hands at all, but that's the Canadian in me, or it could be the simple recognition of the inherent risks of the activity and the absolute fear of trying to explain the insurance premiums to my wife that cause me to question the owner of both the piece and the range's ability to conduct proper risk management.

Part c I guess is understandable - you *really* don't want any charge in a "civilian artillery round". If my recollection of this thread is correct, then that *is* banned in the US.

I guess part b would mean that the ballistics are going to be different and probably more variable than a mass produced round. Not a feature that you want.

 

[Border Reiver]

Some of the practice rounds I've seen over the years (painted a light, robin's egg blue) are sometimes filled with a plaster like matierial and given a cap in the shape of a fuze so that the ballistic characteristics are as close to that of an HE round as possible, but I don't think that buddy went to that much trouble.

The differences in the ballistics of the homemade round with the need for a non-standard projectile and non-standard propellant, taken together with unknown barrel wear, the probable metal fatigue that the gun has (in the trails, cradle, trunions, etc), and the challenges that these guys very likely have in making sure that the recoil system is properly balanced mean that as a gunner, I would not allow that weapon to be fired.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Some of the practice rounds I've seen over the years (painted a light, robin's egg blue) ...

I used to call these "full dress missiles."

 

[newyorkguy]

...The differences in the ballistics of the homemade round with the need for a non-standard projectile and non-standard propellant, taken together with unknown barrel wear, the probable metal fatigue that the gun has (in the trails, cradle, trunions, etc), and the challenges that these guys very likely have in making sure that the recoil system is properly balanced mean that as a gunner, I would not allow that weapon to be fired.

Very well stated.

I wasn't being sarcastic when I said, thinking back to the artillery officers I served with, if Mike had checked with them in advance on how to fire the gun safely, they would've responded:

Forget it. Don't do it. Don't even try it. You're going to kill somebody.

I think any true expert would've told him the same thing. Just forget it.

 

[Border Reiver]

I've taken a look at the website for the event and the pictures of the target area - it's an open,sandy field with trees around it. There are no visible backstops that I would trust to stop a .22LR, let alone artillery projectiles.

In addition to the 105mm howitzer there were also a US 57mm Anti-Tank Gun (a British 6pdr with a US paint job and GM tires) and a German 75mm PAK 40 AT gun. No mention if these were fired, but the whole event makes me ill with worry for any repeats of this event - given that the car targets are rigged to explode when hit!

To my brothers south of the 49th parallel - I support your desire to own and safely operate firearms for defence, pleasure and sport - I question those of you that think that the operation of firearms should be less regulated than the driving of motor vehicles, but that isn't the purpose of this rant - but shouldn't the rights of your neighbours to not sustain large scale property damage from the misuse of crew served weapons not trump your right to have a really big toy?

 

[sadhatter]

Yet knife and sword carry is restricted all over the place and they actually were commonly carried weapons during the founders time.
So obviously there are arms and then there are arms.

In all honesty despite how it may come off ( knife law threads are not nearly a prevalent or split as gun threads) I'm a knife guy. I'd say if they simply let any hand to hand weapon be legal and legal to carry, I'd support stricter regulations on hand guns, though not long guns. Not a ban, stricter controls, i think people should be armed, and as far a pure defense goes, hand to hand weapons would suffice for most people most of the time.

Problem is the most likely to be banned, are the most useful for defense. Make me have to use a crap knife, or baton or whatever and obviously the gun becomes the better choice.