Old power tends to become unstable. Remember the explosion a few years ago in the battleship turret during a training exercise, they were using powder from WWII. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, it was not suicide by a gay crewman but caused when the “old” powder was rammed in the breach. The friction and pressure set it off.

“In regards to precautions, do you walk around with a bulletproof vest on all the time?”

Being shot at random while walking around is a very small risk not worth the effort of avoidance.

Failure of antique firearms when testing them under load with old or hand prepared ammo is a very significant risk.

“Plaintiffs complain that the propellant was old, defendant claims the deceased overloaded the shell. I’m more inclined to believe the latter as old propellant would likely weaken the charge, not enhance it.”

Yes, it would weaken the charge, but depending on the specific composition of the propellant, being old can make it unstable leading to an out of battery detonation during the loading process. That’s hard to take precautions against by means other than not using old propellant.

“Either way, per the article what killed the two of them likely wasn’t equipment failure, but the shell not being prepared correctly.”

True, if and only if it was an out of battery detonation during the loading process.

However for a barrel breach on firing, whether it was equipment failure of the gun itself, or an overcharged shell, they would not have died if the tanks gun had been fired remotely. In this case, in my opinion, the most proximate cause of their deaths was neither failure of the gun nor an improperly prepared shell, but a failure to take basic precautions that should be taken whenever old firearms of unknown condition are tested.

Bob

Calling WWII ancient is a bit hyperbolic, however WWII is now almost closer to the Civil War than the present.

In regards to precautions, do you walk around with a bulletproof vest on all the time? Either way, per the article what killed the two of them likely wasn’t equipment failure, but the shell not being prepared correctly. Plaintiffs complain that the propellant was old, defendant claims the deceased overloaded the shell. I’m more inclined to believe the latter as old propellant would likely weaken the charge, not enhance it.

“You’d think a person who tries to load and fire ancient weaponry, especially one doing so fully informed and with his own resources, would accept all the risk.”

1. WWII isn’t exactly ancient.

2. No, I would think such a person would take more/better safety precautions, such as rigging the tank so the cannon could be fired from a remote location rather than having a person inside the tank to fire it. Why accept a risk that’s avoidable?

The article says they’re probably going to settle, so they’re afraid of moving this to trial. It’s not worth a chance that the Jury will be unsympathetic?

Last time I checked, tanks were supposed to kill people.