AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: Rolf on January 16, 2011, 07:48:35 PM
-
When using barrels from quality makers like Rice, Ed Rayl, Colrain, Longhammock, etc, should the barrels be proofed? I didn't proof the pistol I made. Didn't think it was necessary. It had a standard Green Mountain barrel, 12" long, 15/16" diameter and cal54.
I did a search on "barrel proofing" and got a lot of conflicting views. What do the majority of builders do? Any recommendations from barrel makers like Rice or kit suppliers like Chambers?
Best regards
Rolfkt
-
Magnetic particle inspection is the best way to detect flaws (crack, seams) in these barrels.
A proof test may show if there is something wrong with the way the barrel was breeched. It will not reliably show whether or not a dangerous crack is present.
-
I'm no authority on this at all...but I've bought many T/C, GM, and Rice barrels...they are top quality products and when I buy them I expect and assume them to be as safe as the industry can provide.
Furthermore, I wouldn't know specifically what to use for a proof load...ie:
3 - 4 powder charges? 3 - 4 balls?
Then I'd worry that my "home-made proof loads" might have stressed the barrel to the very edge of its limits, thereby creating a potentially unsafe condition that didn't previously exist in the first place.
So for me, I leave that to the barrel manufacturers...haven't heard of any modern top quality barrels blowing up from normal use so far.
I'm no authority on this at all==That be me too. But I think your right.
-
I personally see no need to proof a production barrel. Having said that, I do have a tendency to fire the first shot out of a new rifle, from the hip with my head turned away. Probably more superstitious than anything else. I then check it over really well.
The only modern ML barrel I have ever heard of blowing was a Douglas, back in the mid 1980's. I was told that the shooter took apart a .45 cal pistol round and poured the powder down the barrel. Smokless powder in a ML is a big no no.
Brian
-
I'm no authority on this at all...but I've bought many T/C, GM, and Rice barrels...they are top quality products and when I buy them I expect and assume them to be as safe as the industry can provide.
Furthermore, I wouldn't know specifically what to use for a proof load...ie:
3 - 4 powder charges? 3 - 4 balls?
Then I'd worry that my "home-made proof loads" might have stressed the barrel to the very edge of its limits, thereby creating a potentially unsafe condition that didn't previously exist in the first place.
So for me, I leave that to the barrel manufacturers...haven't heard of any modern top quality barrels blowing up from normal use so far.
Funny I have heard of modern made guns, ML or otherwise, blowing up in normal use, some of us have pictures. But its a topic nobody wants to talk about so it does not appear in the gun magazines etc etc. It is thought that a rash of failures in the 1970s resulted in a big name in mass produced MLs quietly changes barrel steels but this would never be made public since it would be an admission that they were selling inferior barrels previouis. In any event the blow ups stopped like they had flipped a switch.
How about modern guns CF blowing up? A highly respected European gun maker had a rash of blowups of stainless rifles with factory ammo. "Events" here and in Europe. At least one young shooter in Europe was severely injured, there was a recall, but written accounts are pretty rare, there is no watch dog group that publicizes this sort of thing and magazines don't want to offend advertisers. Concerning the blowups back in the 1970s (an later) there was almost nothing in Muzzle Blasts. So its necessary to LOOK pretty hard sometimes, at least since the demise of the old Buckskin Report.
If you want know about proof loads do the research and educate yourself. You can start with "The Gun and Its Development" by Greener.
I use a double service charge and a two patched balls. This does not mean double pressure but might be close but BP is har pressed to exceed 30000 even in cartridge guns with large charges and heavy bullets. This is well within the tolerance of suitable steels, many modern CFs run 65000+ for normal loads.
I have read that the relatively thin welded iron Springfield .58 Rifle Musket barrels of the Civil War were proved withn with 280 grains of Musket powder and a minie spaced 2" off the powder. Apparently the Minies tending to move off the powder was known by the 1850s.
I proof because I trust but verify. It is extremely unlikely a barrel will fail in proof but proving, NOW AS IN THE PAST, is intended to find FLAWS. A SOUND iron or steel barrel with sufficient wall thickness is not likely to fail at BP pressure levels unless there is a flaw OR the material is not suitable for gun barrels.
Proving also tests threaded attachments and should SOMEONE ELSE blow the gun up it gives me some defense that the gun was safe when it left my hands.
Dan
http://s72.photobucket.com/albums/i199/DPhariss/Gunsmithing/?action=view¤t=58calproof.mp4
-
Buckskin Report... I remember and he payed a high price for telling the truth.
-
Buckskin Report... I remember and he payed a high price for telling the truth.
This why you don't see this sort of thing in magazines.
Magazines simply will not offend advertisers. They cannot and expect to survive.
Dan
-
What ever happened to John D Baird? I have a collection of Buckskin Reports and both of his Hawken books.
-
The indians got him he cashed in his chips several years ago.
-
I believe Rice specifically states not to double charge and double ball their barrels on their website.
-
76, John moved back to WV and passed there several years ago. I remember him flying into the 206 acres at Friendship years ago in a helicopter from Cin. airport. Boy, we used to have fun back then. Pete Allan should remember this as well. He used to cone over to the lodge at night to relax from all those pistol matches he used to win!
-
What ever happened to John D Baird? I have a collection of Buckskin Reports and both of his Hawken books.
07-25-2006, 10:34 PM
This is a message that was forwarded to me today. I'm sure that more than a few of you old grey beards knew him. I knew John, rendezvous'ed with him over the years, and used to occassionally write for the magazine. I first met him in the mid '70's, at Twyman's Rendezvous, at Brunswick, Missouri.
I stopped in at the magazine office whenever I passed through Big Timber. He always talked about how busy he was in his editorials, but I never recall walking into his office,when he wasn't kicked back in his chair, with his feet up on the desk. Some of the old timers will remember the big hooraw some twenty years back ,when he started including BPCR in the magazine, and proclaimed he WAS the NAPR. All that is in the past, and some held hard feelings for many years about it. The way I see it, he did give the muzzleloading fraternity an exceptional resource in his magazine, and was instrumental in helping establish the Western National Mountain Man Rendezvous, that still exists, under the names of the Rocky Mountain Nationals, the High Plains Nationals, and several other offshoots.
Dear Friends;
I have just learned of the passing of John Baird on July 14, 2006. It was
his birthday. John was 78 years and 18 hours old. John published and
edited the BUCKSKIN REPORT magazine in the 1970s and 80s. His May 1978
article on my hunting pouches kick started my three decades of leather
working.
John was afflicted with Lewybodies, a form of dementia similar to
Alzheimers. Being the sort of man he was, as soon as the diagnoses was made
John planned out exactly how his business and personal life was to be
managed right up until the end. John left for his final rendezvous with no
strings untied.
Condolences may be sent to Mrs. John D.(Betty) Baird at 1902 Range Road,
Wadestown, West Virginia 26590. Telephone (304) 662-6220. Betty lives alone
there but her daughter lives nearby. I'll bet Betty would appreciate a
call. I don't have an email address.
There is a possibility that a memorial service will be held at the Eastern
Rendezvous in September.
John helped leave me with wonderful memories of that era of muzzleloading.
I am doing my best to pass on to others the inspiration and enthusiasm of
old Dinglehoofer.
Respectfully,
Chris
-
If you want know about proof loads do the research and educate yourself.
I use a double service charge and a two patched balls.
I don't.
The subject is muzzleloader barrels not modern CF barrels.
And to reiterate, I leave it to the modern muzzleloader barrel manufacturers, not conjecture on the internet.
To suppose that I know more about how to double check behind TC, GM, or Rice barrel makers would be egotistical and arrogant on my part.
A double serivce charge / double ball ??
That's hardly a "proof load"...that's just an occasional accidental morning happenstance at the range.
You indicated you don't know anything about the subject, have not studied it, but are suddenly an expert who knows enough to be a critic?
Classic.
YOU ASKED THE QUESTION. I told you how to answer it and gave you some information.
I am sure this will come as a surprise but the failures of the modern stainless guns is almost surely the result of the same factors that caused a rash of blow ups of TC Hawkens back in the 70's into the early 80s. The stainless guns are made of FREE MACHINING material. It is SFAIK not approved for "pressure vessels" by the ASME at least the last I read on the subject. 416 and 416R stainless.
But you knew early TCs had a tendency to blow up. Right?
You knew that the Douglas barrels until near the end of production were free machining carbon steel, right? (Late production appeared to be the same material annealed I suppose in an attempt to make them less brittle).
Some of these failed for no apparent reason. Brittle fractures just like the stainless bolt guns and blown revolvers I have seen photos of and the unexplained TCs (some were stupidity but apparently the public suddenly got smarter because the blowups stopped like someone flipped a switch). I was simply trying to show a parallel pointing out that they were failing for the SAME BASIC REASON. Brittle material. The European maker claimed it was a bad lot of steel, they could not hide behind the "handloading shield" when factory ammo was being used so they issued a recall.
This has been a pet subject of mine for over 30 years. When did you start thinking about it?
The double service charge and double ball is similar to the British proof of the late 19th century and likely exceeds Belgium and Spain of the same period but I have no info for that.
The current standard in Italy is a 30% overload but this is for smokeless powder.
It is extremely unlikely that a GM barrel is going to fail in service. But there IS a possibility. Since I have been slow to evolve the ability to grow new body parts I proof them anyway.
Roy Keeler thought that proving barrels was a waste of time since he never had one fail in proof or service, until a gun he built blew in the hands of a customer. Douglas barrel 45 caliber. The funny part is that, given the material it may not have failed in proof. But we will never know.
He wrote a report about it in Muzzle Blasts and then, even though he was a ML parts supplier had to buy all his Douglas barrels through a third party (I am told). Fortunately this barrel split up the top flat not the bottom. I examined this barrel or another 45 that failed in the same manner at a friends shop in circa 1969.
Dan
-
I remember seeing muzzle loading barrel in the buckskin report that when they came apart look all most like they were cast iron. WE know they were not but they had the jagged broken look to the failed steel.
Wish we could buy the old buckskin report in a book form kind of like Keith's notes I think its called.
-
"DO NOT:Load with more than ONE round ball at a time and never attempt to shoot a conical bullet in a round ball (slow twist) barrel."
This is a quote copied directly from the Rice barrel website. He does not directly suggest the barrels should not be proofed, but that seems to be the consequence.
Best regards
Rolfkt
-
"DO NOT:Load with more than ONE round ball at a time and never attempt to shoot a conical bullet in a round ball (slow twist) barrel."
This is a quote copied directly from the Rice barrel website. He does not directly suggest the barrels should not be proofed, but that seems to be the consequence.
Best regards
Rolfkt
I believe the concern is trapped air between the balls forcing one back up the bore to form an obstruction but other than asking Rice this is supposition.
Dan
-
I remember seeing muzzle loading barrel in the buckskin report that when they came apart look all most like they were cast iron. WE know they were not but they had the jagged broken look to the failed steel.
Wish we could buy the old buckskin report in a book form kind of like Keith's notes I think its called.
John did this but not all issues/articles were included. I have the two books out in the shop but would have to look to see exactly what is included. It certainly was not everything.
Part of the problem in reproduction is that the photography etc in the original magazines is pretty poor and reproduces even worse.
I have access to 2 full set of Mags IIRC. I also have a couple of boxes that contain several partial sets but a friend has them right now. I got Vivian's car running last spring and she gave me the old office set in the binders it was out in her garage .
Dan
-
"DO NOT:Load with more than ONE round ball at a time and never attempt to shoot a conical bullet in a round ball (slow twist) barrel."
This is a quote copied directly from the Rice barrel website. He does not directly suggest the barrels should not be proofed, but that seems to be the consequence.
Best regards
Rolfkt
I believe the concern is trapped air between the balls forcing one back up the bore to form an obstruction but other than asking Rice this is supposition.
Dan
In the process of trying to "blow" one of my barrels as an experiment I found that trapped air between the two balls was a major concern. I had a helper who was about 35 years old, young and strong as a bull. We (he) struggled with seating the second ball. About half way down the bore it began to hydrolic and refused to be seated. We (he) would push it down and one or two seconds later it would pop back up the bore 2 or 3 inches. Eventually we ( he) got it seated and ready to fire. Seconds before I touched it off we heard a tiny "boop" from the barrel and danged if the ball hadn't popped up again. We let it set for about five minutes hoping that some of the trapped air would escape on its own. It worked and we were finally able to fire the gun safely. But it raised much concern. I now wonder how in heck could someone double charge a gun without knowing it. ?? I'm also conceerned about someone with out experience trying to proof a barrel with double charge and double ball.
Matt
-
I believe the concern is trapped air between the balls forcing one back up the bore to form an obstruction but other than asking Rice this is supposition.
Dan
That's the way I read it too.
The Hydraulic force is difficult to overcome unless a less-than snug patch is used for the top ball. With the normal patching we use it is almost impossible to keep the second ball on the first - Matt's experience about mirrors mine on this.
-
This is the result of loading two balls on a single charge, and having the second ball hydraulic up the bore a couple of inches. This catastrophic failure occurred during a rendezvous event in the 1980's called a stake shoot where individuals had to cut a 2 x 4 off between two marks in the shortest possible time. The shooter here was standing on the far right hand side of the line, next to me. The .54 cal Hawken rifle was of my make, and had a 1" GRRW barrel 36" long. We never found the hammer. No one was injured, but the shooter developed a considerable flinch that took years to overcome. We don't do this event anymore.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy58%2FDTaylorSapergia%2FDSCN1167.jpg&hash=8b14e87364878440ecb62df83112129d9c6fd893)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy58%2FDTaylorSapergia%2FDSCN1169.jpg&hash=983456d2d7ec7ae7d1790d14b7da6584e00d5354)
-
I maybe should not go here but???
To seat two balls, patch the first ball and seat it flush with the top of the muzzle.
Set the second patch and ball on top of the first patched and seated ball.It should be sitting on the first patched ball. This way there is never ever an air space between the two balls. Take your short starter and pound balls down together. Now push them down with your ramrod to the top of your powder charge.
Just a thought about air entrapment .
On a single load in a shotgun I will bite the overshot card just a little with my front teeth just enough
so the air can bleed off.
-
DTS,
WOW! That's certainly not pretty...
Now, I don't know anything about this proofing buisness, but it seems to me that if the barrel has no flaws, the next weakest point might be the breech plug. But in all the pictures of blown up barrels I've seen, maybe a half dozen, all the breech plugs were intact. So that throws that theory out the window.
I remember reading lots of annecdotes about early African and Aisian explorers loading multiple projectiles in their muzzleloader. Ball with buckshot over it, multiple balls, and substancial ammounts of Black powder to make it all go. If you kill me I can't remember exactly where I have read it, but I do remember it.
So maybe they had a different technique; the balls didn't fit as tight, or some other variable that we'ra not aware of.
Haveing said that, I don't think I have any desire or need to put a couple of lead balls on top of each other just yet...
Best Regards,
Albert A Rasch In Afghanistan™ (http://inastan.blogspot.com/)
Scouting for Hogs, Chronicles Style! (http://trochronicles.blogspot.com/2011/01/scouting-for-hogs.html)
-
Back in the day they were called buck and ball loads. It was like a ball with three or four buckshot on top all held with a wad. I have never done it so know very little about it. I can see back in the day of mass musket fire where it could of help put a little more lead out to raise the odds to maybe take more of the other side out of the fight???
-
One must be very careful in seating the second ball.
I have never had one come back up after being seated though it is possible to hear some air escape around the patch and I push the second down slow and then attempt to reseat 2-3 times to see if its moving. I use a .005-.010 under bore ball with a .018 patch. If the ball insists on coming back up after 2-3 seatings, its gotta be pulled I would expect this was more likely in a smoothbore than a rifle. But this may be a "your mileage may vary" thing and others experience may be different.
I know of a light GM swamped 50 caliber barrel that was fired with 2 complete loads powder/ball/powder/ball with no change in the bore dimension or accuracy.
Obviously this did not deform this barrel and GM swamps appear to be completely annealed based on how easy they can be bent.
The burst gun is classic. The barrel did not deform much it seems before failing. This is not how its supposed to be.
I will refrain from further comment before I get into real trouble.
Dan
-
Double loading, ie: powder patch ball, powder patch ball is easily done with a double rifle. The pressure developed is similar to 2 balls plus the weight of the powder charge being the 'final' ejecta.
I suspect a very thin patch combination, if used for both balls, as in a .010" to .012" as used by some shooters, might have the charge between the balls igniting and that might not be very good , health wise.
Total weight of this double loaded 'projectile' is generally about the same as a heavy conical bullet for that bore size, ie: in my .58, recently fired without any damage what-so-ever and not even nasty recoil was 2 x 275gr. ball + 100gr. charge = 650gr. - not a 'light' projectile by any stroke, but a heavy one indeed - same 'weight' as in the heavy load for the .577 Black Powder Express. except that ctg. used up to 160gr. of powder.
2, .570" balls loaded with my normal .0225" patching, will not allow the air to escape from between them - they will keep separating when pressure is removed from the rod. A much thinner patch must be use to allow the air to escape betwen the balls or certainly a bomb was made.
Upon ignition, the balls probably swage together as in Lyman's pictures although may not weld to each other and merely fly close together for a short time, but rest assured, they will both be well 'marked' from the rifling as they are mashed together. I would not expect long range accuracy, not even to 100yards - 50 or 60 tops - perhaps. Too - double balling will drastically reduce the velocity and cause the impact to be very low. A typical single ball muzzle speed of 1,420fps (about 80gr. 2f in a .50) will be redcued to less than the speed of sound, if 2 balls are used - probably. Use your own chronograph to find out, not mine.
The reason for such a good seal in this doubler barreled rifle, is due to the combination used in rather shallow rifling (.008"), even though it is quite easy loading, with the factory 3/8" hickory rod. I quite enjoy using this rifle, sometimes firing rights then lefts on the smae target. Taylor and LB can attest to it's accuracy of fire. A single rear sight is used.
-
My 2 cents & tirade: I have proofed 396 rifles, smooth bores, shot guns, and sundry pistols in my short career of 40 years. In that time, I have had a few vent liners, drums, and breech plugs exit stage right for parts unknown. I don't check so much for the modern steels to fail, but mostly for the failure of the joint of two parts I have put together.
In short, I check my work because: 1.) My name is on that gun and I don't want to have someone killed because of an error on my part. 2.) I have had an original Remington cast steel barrel blow with a charge of 120 grains of FFg. I had installed a new breech plug because gas was leaking past the breech threads. About 9 inches of the top half of the barrel and the new breech plug have not been found to this day. Upon examining the barrel, (which you may view in my shop) it was found to have crystallized and a crack had formed along the entire length of one corner of a rifling groove for the entire length of the barrel. Over the years, that crack had deepened to within 1/64" of the outside of the barrel flats. My ears did ring for a while.
Back in the 70s, read the old Buckskin Reports yourself, modern muzzleloaders by a certain famous and HIGHLY RESPECTED modern muzzleloading manufacturer were blowing up and killing people, and on Christmas morning, no less. Just failure of a modern alloy and a few deaths & law suits resulted.
In closing, a word to the wise to those who reuse a modern, non-US made, "Hawken" barrel: They have often been found to be cracking in the tennon mortise. Should it blow after you have restocked it for a customer, guess who is gonna get sued. I feel that it's better to be safe than sorry. O.K., I'm off my soap box now. Cheers, Bookie
-
I'm sure I'm going to sound like a nit picking so and so, but the steel referenced in the above post didn't "crystalize" Steel is by definition a crystaline structure and no transformation occured resulting in the crack. A brittle fracture surface sometimes has a crystaline appearance. If the crack progressed slowly, it was likely a result of fatigue. Don't hate me Bookie ;)
-
Don't sweat the small stuff, Jim. I said that it had crystalized because that is precisely what it looks like and that I'm a poor wordsmith at best. I've actually thought about polishing a section just to see if there is anything like a Windmanstatten pattern visible (like in my metorite collection) ;D....and besides, I learn something from folks that actually know something, so you done good. Cheers, Bookie
-
I don't want to stoke a fire here, but , I remember back to my "Hawken- J. Johnson " days, and many of my friends [ and myself] were using a black powder substitute. Pounds and pounds of it. When I found that I could get dirty patches every day for 4+ days after cleaning, I stopped using it. I still have a letter that I got from S. Fadala when I asked him about this. Talked about microscopic cracks and steel porosity. If you consider this ,along with the barrel mat'l, I would never feel good about reusing such a barrel.
-
October - December 1985 Muzzle Blasts was a three-part series on muzzle loading rifles, both mass-produced and custom made, that had burst. The consequences on occasion with very unpleasant.
If anyone wishes, I can email him the list of 17 failures in these articles. In 16 of them it was miserable metallurgy and/or design. Some of the injuries, including brain injury, were career-changing. Others just needed (I suppose) a change of clothing.
In only one, to the best of my knowledge, was smokeless involved. In No. 13 the fellow fired several rounds with Unique before going back to black powder. When I saw the pieces there were grains of black powder stuck in the breech. It puzzled me, as the gun burst at the breech in a manner I associate with using smokeless. Then the lawyer told me about him using Unique for a while. Lawyer did not like my report, i.e., that he had no case. The shooter paid with an arm and an eye for his error.
May I predict that most readers will focus on this one, and not the 16 with miserable steel, iused in barrels still prized for their accuracy, and unthinking design, still extant in used rifles?
-
Were they breech-plug-to-barrel failures...or specifically, barrel bursts that were up along the barrel itself?
If up along the barrel, was it revealed how is was proven beyond a doubt that a barrel burst due to a barrel quality issue vs. a bore obstruction?
You need to read the last sentence of Mr Kelly's post again. Then maybe a third time.
This is a page from the old "Buckskin Report". It reproduces a letter from a major steel producer.
This is from the Nov 1981 issue pg 11. There is an unrelated cartoon at the bottom of the page and I cut this off intentionally when I scanned it and lost the pg# and date.
The Mr Kelly mentioned is our own JCKelly.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FML%2520Guns%2FLaSalleSteelletter001.jpg&hash=6be1509e4f0f5b3963e7cd4dc07b293fe2ba11d7)
The discussion carried on for some time in the late 70s and early 80's.
Jerry Cunningham did a lot of writing in defense of the material. Much of it trying to spin the statements contained in the letter from Mr. Polek into something that agreed with with his position which was locked in by his making barrels from unsuitable material. As a result he had no choice.
In this situation admitting unsuitability would result in the loss of any subsequent lawsuit.
Dan
-
Dan,
That is pretty clear. The part that should (I would hope) scare folks straight is where he says the material will behave "in a brittle manner" in response to transverse stress. That "brittle manner" is not good news in case of failure and makes proofing it essentially meaningless.
-
Little off the point here.
I know people and have seen where people
use a DOM tube for smooth bore barrels.
Even with a proof test I would still have to wonder
how safe they would really be? I have never heard of
one failing?
-
Little off the point here.
I know people and have seen where people
use a DOM tube for smooth bore barrels.
Even with a proof test I would still have to wonder
how safe they would really be? I have never heard of
one failing?
Someone posted that a friend made a gun from the stuff and it failed. But I forget the details.
If tubing made good barrels nobody would use a gun drill to bore bar stock.
Proving an unsuitable material only proves it did not fail with that shot.
Dan
-
DPharis,
So if you have a suitable steel of sufficient thickness, why proof at all?
volatpluvia
-
Little off the point here.
I know people and have seen where people
use a DOM tube for smooth bore barrels.
Even with a proof test I would still have to wonder
how safe they would really be? I have never heard of
one failing?
Someone posted that a friend made a gun from the stuff and it failed. But I forget the details.
If tubing made good barrels nobody would use a gun drill to bore bar stock.
Proving an unsuitable material only proves it did not fail with that shot.
Dan
I read above that drawing will make steel more brittle??? Not what I want to go off by my head.
I don't know if I am fully on board on proof test But I have a unknown tower flint lock barrel of these modern times I will surely proof.You know I guess in the back of my head I thought that smooth barrels were drawed over something???? I would guess not now? Sorry for pushing this post around but I am trying to learn and understand . Thank you all.
-
DPharis,
So if you have a suitable steel of sufficient thickness, why proof at all?
volatpluvia
You should read Bookie's post again.
The barrel steel is not the only thing being proved.
Vent liners, breeches, drums, nipples....
Dan
-
"...miserable steel, iused in barrels still prized for their accuracy, and unthinking design..."
You haven't mentioned the barrel manufacturers being indicted here.
I've been using various calibers and gauges of T/C, GM, and Rice barrels since 1990...given their widespread use and popularity I can only conclude if any of the defective barrels were from these three well known manufacturers, surely somebody by now would have posted something about them by name, on some of the forums I've read daily over all of the years.
Where do I find the official source document of Proof-Load-Testing procedures and loads, by caliber and gauge, for T/C, GM, and Rice barrels?
I have been down this road before. I am tired of being pecked to death by ducks on this issue, this is why I post the LaSalle letter. Anyone who does not like what it says can call Lasalle. If I mention a maker I just get pecked since the science and metallurgy are totally ignored in the quacking frenzy that follows.
You want to know what someone uses for barrel steel call them on the phone and ask.
I have to work pretty hard to be nice. This has been going on for decades and I tend to get a little short fused about it. But lots of people simply do not know the history that causes myself and some others to feel compelled to take cover when some factory mades are being fired even though the blowups stopped 25+ years ago. One never knows when someone will find a early version and end up shooting it. I tend to avoid them or honestly and it sounds macabre, if I cannot get away easily I try to get the shooters head between me and the breech.
GM uses hot rolled GB quality 1137 from their advertising and from how it machines and files I suspect this is accurate. Its not my first choice for alloy but its better than most of the material used for ML barrels in the US so I use them. But I still proof everything.
You want to know a bad breech design from a good one then inform yourself. But it may not be easy...
Some points to ponder, many in the form of questions...
For percussion "patent" breeches how is the nipple seat cut, how high is the fence, does it protect the shooter from cap flash and fragments? How is the threaded portion of the breech made in relation to the interior machining. Is it so heavily rebated at the rear of the threads and the cavity so large here that the threaded portion is likely to break off? IT SHOULD NOT BE REBATED and the powder channel should be ANGLE DRILLED from a shallow "cup" at the breech face. Though a thick walled chamber will work OK too, flint patent breeches are made in this manner and some percussions as well. But the angle drilling eliminates having to cross drill the percussion breech for a flash channel.
Is the breech cut up from the bottom under the nipple seat to fit over the lockplate so that its likely to blow out at the thin area and leak high pressure gases? Some were and did.
Does the breech seal the bore so there is no fouling/oil/patch trap at the beech end of the bore? Is the breech installed so tight as defy removing it and what stress does this put on threaded/machined parts? Do they have a reputation for breaking off if removal is attempted? Ever wonder why "replacement" barrels for some mass produced guns have installed breeches? I know one reason... Make long threaded portion then put a weak thin walled stress riser BEHIND the threads ::)
Virtually none of the mass produced guns pass muster in many of these areas most are deficient in several if not all.
How thick is the barrel wall where its it threaded for the breech plug? This wall thickness is the "locking lug".
Do the threaded parts fit the hole properly?
Some of these things apply to the flint breeches as well BTW.
When people make guns/barrels for other people they should know the answers to these questions.
Example of good exterior percussion breech design:
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/partDetail.aspx?catId=12&subId=78&styleId=266&partNum=AAI-710
Not so good.
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/partDetail.aspx?catId=12&subId=83&styleId=292&partNum=AAI-870
Note how high the nipples are above the fence.
The United States has no proof law so I suggest that you buy a copy of "The Gun and Its Development" by Greener and look to the proof tables there AND the description of the mode of proof. It was constantly revised so I suggest one with a pre-1900 copyright (mine is 1896). You can find it on line at Google books I think. But I like having the book, its easier for me to read.
This is pretty good information so long as you don't try to use the Express Rifle tables. Not likely to hurt a good barrel but its more than needed for a gun using a PRB.
Or contact one of the National proof houses in Europe if you must have "official" numbers. But of course they will not be "official" in the US. Just for what ever country you happen to call. I suggest an English speaking country like Britain. Language barriers and all that you know.
For shotguns? It seems lots of people are using 12-8 gauge loads in 20 bore guns so I don't know how to figure a proof for a barrel that gets a proof load if not more, every time a "turkey load" is fired in it.
So have you ever had a nipple blow out of a gun? This one was a new made (at the time) rifle with Belgium proofs, mild load too 30-35 gr in a 40 caliber. Have you ever been hit in the face with cap fragments and bled as a result? Does anyone you know or have known, carry black powder fouling particles under the skin of his face from a nipple blowing out of a (big name barrel maker deleted to prevent attacks by my "maligning" an icon) "Hawken" barrel because the barrel maker made breech design put too much pressure on the nipple base? (It may have been metallurgy though the flash channel was considered to be a fault by a very experienced gunmaker.) But all three principals are all dead of old age now, another good reason to not mention names. I just know what I was told by the guy with the black spots in his nose.
Have you ever had parts made of cold rolled steel break off at firing due to poor notch strength and bad design? I tend to watch where I stand at rifle matches depending on firearms design after this and it was 40+ years back.
Have you ever had a vent liner gas cut past the threads and then leak?
Do you know to cut a flat for the nipple to seat on in a percussion patent breech? Many are not properly done if you buy parts that are cast and machined. If not done already the seat should be cut before the breech is put into service. Its a simple job but most people don't even know TO do it or where to find the tools. So gas and cleaning solvent leak past the threads.
Did you know a vent liner (or nipple) is seated to a shoulder INTERNALLY that the pressure on the liner/nipple can be greatly reduced, perhaps by 1/2 or even more?
With careful fitting its possible to get a good seal at both ends of a vent liner BTW.
I would point out that I have no vested interest, no stock in any steel or barrel making company, nothing. I don't sell barrels either no matter who makes them. So I have no financial axe to grind by encouraging one maker over another. Nor do I have any animosity toward barrel makers.
If people can't tell a miserable breech from a good one they don't even know what the questions are much less the answers.
If you would do some research it would save people a lot of typing trying to determine your level of knowledge and inform you.
I learned a lot of this from "old guys" I shot with and from reading, both old books and new material.
Buying factory made guns and shooting them a lot will give experience but it will not teach the proper methods of making a ML arm even if you take them apart and study them, nor will it show you proper design. The factories do not subscribe to these since it is too labor intensive and/or requires more complex machining. So its necessary to look to quality, properly assembled guns from the past. As in the pictures linked here. If the links work...
You will likely note that the blown out nipples and parts breaking off, leaking vent liners etc etc happened in the past, ancient past for some. This is because I have tried to learn and not make these mistakes again. Other things, the blown thin spot in the bottom of the patent breech was stuff I read about or was reported by gunmakers at the time.
Dan
-
DPharis,
So if you have a suitable steel of sufficient thickness, why proof at all?
volatpluvia
because it´s man made and man made faults. If there will be no faults you live in a perfekt world.
-
Dan,
What barrels do you use when you build flintlocks??
-
Dan,
What barrels do you use when you build flintlocks??
Green Mountain.
Dan
-
Dan P,
Got some questions for you ...
In the LaSalle letter, number 4 reads, "A thermal treatment after all machining and fabrication operations which will assure complete recrystallization of the material. Only a full anneal or quench and temper operation will fill this need."
With the above in mind, would you please explain what type of thermal treatment you give your barrels when you're done working on them and what process do you use. Also, when you use high-temperature silver braze to attach accessories to the barrel, do you do a complete thermal treatment on the barrel?
When you make your breechplugs, do you heat-treat the plug itself as a separate piece - do you just heat treat or anneal the entire barrel assembly after the plug is installed and all other work is done?
Speaking of threading breechplug, vent liners and nipples ... since the Buttress style thread is the strongest, why is it not used? Would it not be better to use the stronger Buttress style thread on small arms considering that it is used on large artillery guns?
When you install the breechplug, do you adjust it to a known torque value or do you use a compression formula based upon contact with the boss & face? Also, what formulas do you use to determine said torque or compression rating and do the formula(s) take into account thread engagement loading strength based on contact surface mapping of the actual assembly or do you use assumed constant values in the calculations?
Can you please explain the difference between a bar of steel that is cold-rolled and a modern gun barrel that is formed by cold-rolling or cold hammer forging? I ask because in another thread you said that rolled threads were stronger than cut threads however the thread rolling process is done cold ... and if you're cutting threads in the breech or on the plug, are you not making a weaker connection and should therefore seek out barrels and plugs with cold-rolled formed threads?
After you overcharge the barrel and it doesn't blow up that time, what inspection method (IE: X-ray, ultrasound, eddie current?) do you use to ensure that the overcharge did not cause internal fracturing that will fail at a later date with a normal service charge?
-
Thank you for asking these questions Fl-flinter. I wondered myself why Stress Relieve Anneal, and subsequent Electro Magnetic processes seemed to have been avoided in the previous discussions on the two threads (Douglass Barrels and this one).
R
-
Dan I know it got to be hard to make a point when it is a old friend you worked with for years,. I think we are out here trying to rap our minds around the thoughts on use of steel.. Steel is really hard to put in box's.
I have tried to pay attention to steel but its is hard. You have showed me that say a 11## or 4140series steel and say now run it thru a DOM now its brittle.. 11## can be used in tools ,axles.knifes on and on but it must for one time depended on the heat treating of the steel. Then 11## fine but now what the carbon numbers like 1180.
Now it will act different
I have the parts to build a heat treat oven but was not thinking of going that large for a barrel.
I think as people we are use to buying the parts be it for a gun or car and bolt the part right on with no other thought in mind. Sorry about that blood from bitting your lip trying to keep your cool AND I understand. But I think your making head way.
If this was easy we would not of had bad barrels. and You said about one barrel not my fav steel for a barrel but use them. That tells right there barrel steel must not be a simple cut and dried answer. Ok that bad enough.
Now we are getting into connections of parts to parts. Jumping thought here Like they will roll splines say a axle but I think they heat treated after. :-\ :'(
Thank You Dan
-
Questions are for Dan but I'll chime in on one.
To the best of my knowledge, Douglas barrels were not stress relief annealed. I cut a short section out of one, then carefully sliced though one side. Measured distance across flats before & after I cut. Basically it sprung open.
I did this because when an annealed, or quenched & tempered, cylinder bursts under pressure the crack begins at the bore. Yet on the Douglas failures I examined the crack began at the surface. This made no sense to me until I cut that sample described above.
What I concluded was that the bar had been cold drawn rather heavily to make the octagonal shape. It was then bored, I suppose reamed, and rifled. It received no heat treatment after being drawn to the octagonal shape.
One exception to this was 7-groove barrels made for Golden Age Arms, which were black because they were stress relief annealed at some point.
In the 1960's Douglas ads in Muzzle Blasts, to my ancient recollection, said or implied that they magnetic particle inspected. I presume they do this on modern barrels. I am doubtful they did it on later muzzle loading barrels, such as the late 1970's or 1980's, though I do not know for a certainty. One failure I analyzed had what to me appeared to be a pre-existing crack in the steel. I would think it should have been found by either mag particle or eddy current inspection.
Enough for now.
-
For myself I can say it open to anyone that has a piece of the to me a puzzle.
You know this was a kind of a big thing back in the 80's even in the groups I use to shoot
with. I have gotten away from it all and dropped it out of my mind. Then as the years go by
you hear of cannons and that the liners are seamless DOM same with my steam power friends
in there boilers at work . Then One as I said BP buds from back in the 80's just few years ago told me of
making fowlers with gas pipe....I guess that to be DOM seamless pipe. I guess I got use to the idea
and never gave it the though I should have? There a little voice in your head that says if the companys
who make barrels cannot get it right maybe I should not even be playing with this stuff.
Well 58 years to late for that. :o
-
Thank you for asking these questions Fl-flinter. I wondered myself why Stress Relieve Anneal, and subsequent Electro Magnetic processes seemed to have been avoided in the previous discussions on the two threads (Douglass Barrels and this one).
R
You all may need to go back and read the LaSalle letter again where he specifically states the the various cold rolled free machining steels list are not suitable. His comments on heat treat were for other steels and do not apply to cold rolled.
It is impossible to make relatively low quality steel with high levels of sulfur/lead/phosphorus "safe" by heat treatment. This will not remove the inclusions or flaws in the steel resulting from the way it was originally made for its intended application.
For those of you who feel that all modern guns are made in a safe and sane manner I would point to the wide spread use of 416 and 416R stainless. (SAKO had a number of failures and recalled guns, there have been other failures as well but this is the only recall I know of) and Kreiger does not recommend their use under 0F. It too is a free machining material.
So why do they make them? Because people want SS barrels and actions.
I have no idea what the hammer forging process entails but I suspect that the barrels are stress relieved afterwards. Its not done because its the best way to make a good barrel its done because its CHEAP in the long run and not very labor intensive.
I do know that button rifled barrels made of hot rolled GB quality steel must be annealed afterwards or the bore dimensions will be lost when the barrel is machined to contour.
1137 is not my first choice for barrel steel. But its a long way from my last choice. I do know that I have never heard of one blowing with BP and there are LOTS of them out there in calibers that will make 30000 psi with BP. The 45-70 factory loads, the HV ones, are limited to 28000 by SAAMI. I know from lab tests that the barrels will stand 50K with no stress at all in 45-70.
The ones that blew were used with smokeless and were SERIOUSLY overloaded and simple over pressure does not fragment the barrel so I have a lot of confidence in 1137 for ML barrels. I would rather have 4140/50 which is the Gold standard (it will stand cartridges in the mid 65000 range) but its tough to find people who make swamped ML barrels in this alloy and grade.
So people worrying about overloading and harming an 1137 barrel with double powder/double ball frankly don't know what they are talking about. The proof load simply will not make enough pressure to cause a problem if the barrel is sound. It its not sound? Well thats what the proof load is supposed to find out.
A friend, who also used to work in plant that made barrels, told of a recent conversation with an ICON in modern match grade rifle barrels. He stated he would prefer skelp welded wrought iron barrel to leaded screw stock which he would not pull a trigger on.
I suspect that there was a reason why the US gov't staid with iron for barrels until the cartridge era. Steel making was hit or miss and the alloy was not really known. It was either mild steel or high carbon. A really good iron would be more suitable when the alloy is not known. Note that the "stronger" steel barrels used on MLs in the 19th century were often heavier is cross section than the older iron barrels. Could have been the advent of the percussion system or better powder or the use of the picket bullet. But the guns got heavier it seems. Except the Gov't iron barrels. The Minie rifles were still pretty light in the barrel and stood serious proof levels from what I have read.
I used to work in a place that makes button rifled barrels. The failure rate (splitting) in buttoning hot rolled GB quality 1137 or 4150 is low. I remember 1 maybe 2 in several years the one I specifically remember looked OK externally but had a full length crack in the bore that the button had forced the edges into then when the crack closed again it squeezed a ridge up in the bore. The failure rate when doing barrels in mill run 1144 "Stressproof" was over 10% if the barrels are rebated at the muzzle as this lot of barrels was.
Which would YOU prefer to have next to your face?
I walked back to the big old broach they used to pull the buttons one day and saw a number of failed (read cracked open) barrels and then looked at the paint color, checking the chart in the tool room told me that it was stressproof.
Now you might ask why were they made of this?
The plant owner bought what he could get. One of his arguments was a classic "its a 100000 psi steel". Again the belief that the TENSILE number means something. In this case it does not and is actually misleading.
He bought it BECAUSE SMALL LOTS OF GUN BARREL QUALITY STEEL CANNOT BE OBTAINED unless the maker can find someone with an excess and this is not likely.
Its tough to get it in semi-load lots. It has to be ordered, it is then made in the bar sizes ordered.
But it has to be bought by the FURNACE LOAD. So "small" makers of premium barrels end up pooling their orders to get enough tonnage to justify the mill making a run of the stuff. This is hot rolled 4140-4150 GB quality. Its also expensive.
But anyone can buy Stressproof by the bar. Its mill run and they make it in large batches with just enough care to make sure its meet the alloy requirements and has enough lead and other lubricants to machine easily. They don't certify anything or take any care to make special QUALITY STEEL.
My belief that Douglas annealed some late production ML barrels was based on the fact that the later ones had a hard scale much like hot rolled steel. The people who ran into this stuff, gun makers, decided the hard scale was from heat treat before the bar was made into barrels.
I don't know of anything that would produce this other than hot rolling or some heat treat after the bars were made.
I would not equate the gun barrel makers not quenching and annealing GB quality steels after all machining processes are done with the practice of using low quality cold rolled steel for barrels. Its apples and oranges.
The proponents of using leaded screw stock for gun barrels spend a lot of time attacking the fringes but will not address the specific statement that the company that INVENTED Fatigueproof and Streesproof (they are niether BTW) specifically states they should not be used for gun barrels. When confronted with this they simply say the guy does not know what he is talking about.
AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED:
THE LETTER IS FROM LASALLE STEEL. ASK THEM WHAT THEY MEAN. I just passed on the info and have no way to try to interpret what they may or may not mean.
Somehow people see someone pointing out that some modern made breech in not safe, for example, as a personal attack since they own one I guess.
This is not the case. Its simple fact. If the breech, for example, does not protect the shooter from being struck by cap fragments for example the breech is not properly made. And this applies to some high quality vintage guns as well. Its not as though its a new problem.
But when people perceive some insult or attack all comprehension goes out the window.
Unless personally attacked I will not be posting to this thread again. The primary reason for posting most of this is two fold, to pass on what I have learned over the decades and hopefully get people to think and DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH. But in my experience its hard to find a metallurgist to go on record where gun barrels are concerned. The last time I tried to find one (back when the Stressproof barrel blanks were splitting) I had to get a friend to contact a friend who knew a prof who was the head of Metallurgy at a eastern University. I got back a one line question: "Why would anyone use anything but chrom-moly for gun barrels?"
By the time I left the gun factory they were using GB quality 4140/50 chrom-moly for all barrels ;D
And one more thing. There is another purpose for posting safety related material. It allows people to make an INFORMED DECISION. I only brought up the unsuitable material because the topic was proof and its impossible to proof unsuitable material. The things that make it unsuitable (see the LaSalle letter) mean that proving it is meaningless since it has properties that can cause it to fail after proof or with not proof at pressures far under a proof load. From where I set at the computer I can see 3 guns with Douglas barrels. A rifle and a pair of pistols. I have retired the rifle until I rebarrel it. I have retired and then used this rifle a couple of times. But I just can't justify it anymore. I have Green Mountain barrels I can shoot. The pistols (and the rifle for that matter) are collector pieces anyway, but I have a GM out in the shop for the rifle. Will set the Douglas in the gun safe for posterity.
I have another rifle with a screw stock barrel that I really hate not using. But I have a line on another barrel maker who does not use screw stock who might be able to make this somewhat oddball. Or I might get a couple of pieces of Chrom-moly from the gun factory, ream and try rifling them...
Dan
-
I'm not open for discussion about what I know concerning the following, but I do still have the reports concerning failures in the mid-70s concerning TC. Now, there is a famous name for whomever needs it. Probably the most prestigious name in modern muzzleloading rifles. They had issues once upon a time which concerned their "modern steel", but took care of them. If it can happen to them, why would you think it couldn't happen to you, too? I consider myself a traditionalist at heart, but if I was in the market for a modern muzzleloader today, TC would be my only choice. In closing, Gentlemen, To proof or not to proof is a question you must answer for yourself. Think it over and "do what you gotta do". I choose to drop out of this thread as it has deteriorated to unpleasantness. Cheers, Bookie
-
Dan, Your recent posts on this thread have caused me to re-read Jerry Cunningham's short treatise entitled: "Destructive Testing of Muzzleloading Rifle Barrels" published - 1982. As far as I know, he is the only person who has taken the time to put to "test" the free-machining steels used in ML gun barrels. The conclusion that I came to years ago, and now is that if proper machining methods are adopted for the installation of breech plugs, touch hole liners, percussion drums and nipples, the steel known as 12L14 is quite suitable for a muzzle loading barrels that are loaded properly for a single patched round ball propelled with only black powder, provided that the wall thickness is not less than .173". He did over 150 destructive tests using a variety of calibers from 36-62 and corresponding barrel widths. The weakest barrel did not bulge till it was loaded with 400 gr. of 3f and 4 balls. This is a 465% overload with powder and a 400% overload with projectile. For normal hunting and target shooting, we would not be anywhere near that kind of load! I think that the letter from LaSalle Steel Co. is aimed at the makers who are involved with center fire and smokeless loads.
I have been rifling muzzleloading gun barrels for over 30 years now and I have only encountered 2 barrel failures personally. One was the shooter's fault, the other was poor workmanship on the behalf of the maker. Neither were the fault of barrel steels - in this case 12L14.
These are my thoughts on the matter of proofing - it is not necessary if the workmanship is of quality.
Hugh Toenjes
Th
-
It staring to sink in. Dan that is a page full of good advice.
some modern made breech in not safe,
Yes I have some. And I would tell you they were right? no
Hay if it helps you guys got the brain working. Thank You
Gregg
-
Gentlemen,
I have been reading this thread with much interest as it brings up many issues that were debated concerning barrel steels years ago. As in most debates, there are some good points on each side. However, I agree with Bookie and Dan when it comes to the subject of proofing one's work. It doesn't make sense to not test-fire, at least, a newly made firearm before putting it to your shoulder. I think that this is simply common sense and should not have to be explained.
I am the "friend" that Dan refers to in his post about having the conversation with a well-known barrel maker who, when asked about leaded steels, said that he would rather fire a correctly welded skelp barrel than one of leaded screw stock. His name was John Krieger. This was a private conversation and John related his opinion as a barrel maker concerning the steels in question. I have had nearly the same conversation with Ernie Stallman of Badger Barrels, Jim MacLemore, and Frank Green of Bartlein Barrels. All expressed the opinion that leaded steels were not something that they considered gun barrel quality. The main problem being of inclusions, mainly lead, that would show up in individual blanks due to quality control.
I have a Douglas blank (circa 1980) that I believe has those inclusions. I shot it for years. I always wondered that there were fine streaks that wouldn't take browning. At the time the gun was made I thought it was simply the nature of browning. The barrel was proofed and, like I said, I have shot it for years. A couple of years ago I thought that I could feel an edge on one of the streaks. I had Dan replace it with a Green Mountain barrel. When I described the barrel to Mr. Krieger he simply smiled and said, "Not shooting it any more, are you?" He also said something that stayed with me- "consider that a leaded steel barrel that has inclusions is basically soft-soldered together."
There are a lot of people who have dogs in this fight for one reason or another. Some have defended the use of leaded steels either from their use of those steels or because, in light of their own research, consider them to be adequate when used with black powder and it's relatively low pressures... when correctly loaded. However, to reject the experiences of someone who has personal experience with the performance of barrel steels during manufacture, and has collected information on known barrel failures, is extremely short-sighted. Forewarned is forearmed and I consider Dan's postings to be valuable contributions to the discussion, as I do the collective wisdom, experience and opinions of four other professional barrel makers.
I have some '70's and 80's vintage firearms, collectable, that I regularly shoot. They have barrels from that era when the steel quality became an issue. I'm re-barreling them and preserving the original barrels. That's just me. Everyone is free to do what they want, especially when they take into consideration their own experiences and knowledge on the subject.
The greatest advantage to forums such as this is the free exchange of information. Obviously, some of that information will be of more value than other. However, a healthy discussion carried on in an intelligent manner benefits us all and a wise man will consider all opinions.
Just my thoughts,
Steve Garbe
-
Roundball.......I've been following this thread from the beginning but I refsuse to get into it again. The first go-round
on this subject back in the 80's was just too time consuming for me, cost me too much in time, kept me from making
barrels. By the way, we are still using the same steel to make our barrels....................Don
-
I lied I am back... ::) I had a phone conversation and it started me looking in old magazines again.
You need to find the Buckskin Report articles.Specifically the Oct 1981 and later issues and the earlier ones they cite.
There are a number of rather extensive write ups. Both sides of the argument. Pages and pages and pages. I have some of it scanned it but it just takes up too much space.
Including the fact that Montana Barrel Company was switching to 1137 GBQ since they were apparently going to be making barrels for smokeless applications. GM BTW uses 41xx series for cartridge barrels.
Could have been related to the failures of 12L14 schuetzen barrels.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FBarrel%2520steel%2FbarrelsteelLR1.jpg&hash=43c7065de686aef8dc702c7d7445439894694b97)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FBarrel%2520steel%2FASSRAbarrelsteel002.jpg&hash=66ee504cc7d40c5881efe34c5b7f9b54b873fdd7)
Yeah its smokeless. But my position if that the barrel should not have failed, period and if it DID it should not brittle fraction and throw fragments.
There are very similar "events" involving MLs. But often they are usually not by the guy who broke the trigger.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FML%2520Guns%2FBarrelfailure2.jpg&hash=0716a0c9e8538ed33cb254e4c126b709beeb04d2)
It should not have failed in this manner. Bulging and splitting is not the same as breaking off with virtually no bulging is a sign of BRITTLE FRACTURE.
In all the comments about the use a leaded screw stock people who take the time will find that the only barrel makers that defend its use are the ones that use it. This alone should be a red flag. Once they make barrels from the stuff they are compelled by liability to defend it even when they start making barrels of some other steel. Then there is the "handloader defense" since any rifle barrel made of modern steel will stand massive over pressures, most of the time, failures are immediately put on loading error... The safety net for barrel/gun makers.
Barrel makers who do not use cold rolled leaded steels, and I suspect some have sold more barrels than the ML trade has used since the 1950s, have no use for the stuff. In fact one, Ernie Stalhman who I used to buy barrels from before he retired, would go on an instant rant if you mentioned leaded steels. He would not allow leaded steel in his plant. The mention of this stuff would often slow the ordering process. And he did make a lot of barrels. Even some ML barrels but he would only make 35" and under...
Most makers of ML barrels are hobby shops in comparison.
Dan
-
What a great discusion, diferent strokes for different folks. Just a short note about original post, I found an phamphlet from GRRW when they were in Roosevelt and the proofed load sugestions. Acording to Bill one patched round ball was what he recomended on top of a powder charge of aprox. ball weight. Just some more food for thought. Gary
-
Further more - I thought this was a Longrifle Forum! Why are addressing the dangers of firing smokeless powder in gun barrels that were made of steel which was not designed for nitro?? When you examine the explosive properties of nitro powders and understand their behavior it is no wonder that there have been barrel failures using 12L14 steel! I have all of those articles that were published in the Buckskin Report and pondered many times back in the early 80"s. I was just beginning to get into the rifling business then and it scared the h-ll out of me. Then I subscribed to some common sense and calmed down because I realized that blackpowder pressures in round ball guns are less than half of those in smokeless! More like 1/3rd. I pressed on as did all of the "small" time barrel makers. 30 some yrs. later I can truthfully say that I consider the largest threat to safety in the Contemporary Longrifle maker's realm is bad workmanship!! Such as the installing of a breech plug with not enough threads to give a good safety margin or the theads are not engaging 99%. If there is any lateral play in those breech threads I consider them un-safe! I like an all most interupted fit of threads. Also my breeches extend to 3/4" in length. I think that we need to focus more on doing GOOD workmanship than discussing the properties of nitro powders. Again my thoughts ;) Hugh Toenjes
-
What a great discusion, diferent strokes for different folks. Just a short note about original post, I found an phamphlet from GRRW when they were in Roosevelt and the proofed load sugestions. Acording to Bill one patched round ball was what he recomended on top of a powder charge of aprox. ball weight. Just some more food for thought. Gary
Gary - perhaps I missed something - are GRRW barrels mentioned somewhere as to barrel steel? I'd like to know. I guess I haven't proofed mine yet - as that would be 480gr. of powder and a single 480gr. ball. I've only shot 330gr2F with a single tightly patched ball - but didn't like it much. :D
-
I think the moderators should stop this discussion. The only thing it might do is to scare away any new gun builder,
thinking, "gee, do I really want to build a "bomb" ", maybe I should just take up golf. One should always remember, when shooting any gun, muzzleloader or cartridge, when you pull that trigger it is creating a rather powerful explosion
right here in your hands. Let's not scare them away.................Don
-
Dan Pharris,
There's a lot of discrepancies in your statements that need to be clarified and you didn't directly answer any of the questions I posed. I'm not arguing alloys; people who use nitro powder in a muzzleloader; people who don't pay attention to what they're doing when loading; people who partake in the stupidity of "speed shooting"; people who don't know how to properly load or anything else. I'm "asking" you to answer to the following questions based on the information and statement you provided in this forum.
The LaSalle letter, item 4 concerning "Gun Barrel Quality" steels states that "A thermal treatment after all machining and fabrication operations which will assure complete recrystallization of the material. Only a full anneal or quench and temper operation will fill this need."
1- Would you please explain what type of thermal treatment you give your barrels when you're done working on them and what process do you use. On numerous occasions you stated that you use high-temperature silver braze to attach accessories to the barrel ... I'm asking if you again do a complete thermal treatment on the barrel post-brazing since you changed the properties of the barrel, at a minimum in the heat affected zone, during the brazing process?
2- When you make your breechplugs, do you heat-treat the plug itself as a separate piece or do you just heat treat or anneal the entire barrel assembly after the plug is installed and all other work is done?
3- The Buttress style thread is the strongest thread design, it is used on large artillery gun breeches because of its superior strength so why is it not used on small arms?
4- When you install the breechplug, do you adjust it to a known torque value or do you use a compression formula based upon contact with the boss & face? Also, what formulas do you use to determine said torque or compression rating and do the formula(s) take into account thread engagement loading strength based on contact surface mapping of the actual assembly or do you use assumed constant values in the calculations?
Related to this question is your statement about "sealing the bore":
A friend built a lot of guns using bolts for breech plugs. They are made to a specification. The taps used are made to the same spec.
There will be a certain amount of slop in any threaded joint. If that worried about thread fits. The standard fit is 75% IIRC, then make your own breech plugs so that the tolerance can be controlled. But the fit is not THAT critical if the bore is sealed.[/u] Re: powder chamber on breech plugs « Reply #35 on: December 18, 2010, 01:38:12 PM »
I'm curious to know your secret on "sealing the bore" with a breechplug when there's no intermediate gasket material involved. I've worked on a lot of stuff and any time you have a connection with non-tapered threads, some type of additional gasketing material is required to achieve a "seal" between iron-base alloys. Looking at the breechplug fitting pictures you posted, you're showing the steel plug mating to a flat steel boss in the barrel breech - in the above quote you stated that the amount of "slop" in threads isn't really critical if the bore is sealed ... my questions are:
A- How do you achieve the alleged "seal" and how do you test the seal? I'm curious as to if you pressurize the bore to 20ksi or so with nitrogen or what ... there has to be some form of bench testing you use to establish the quality of the "seal" - I mean it's impossible to perform any kind of "seal test" using powder burn because the massive volume of fouling generated by the burning powder would create a false positive.
B- The threads that are retaining the plug and therefore the thread strength is critical to maintaining the alleged seal - thus, if the threads fail will not the alleged seal be compromised as well? How does the alleged "seal" prevent mechanical strength failure of the threads?
C- In other threads you claim a certain breeching style is "the strongest" but the accompanying drawings show the vent liner penetrating the load-bearing threads of the plug - please show the engineering data that proves why that particular breech style is allegedly "the strongest" and how one achieves a stronger threaded breechplug connection by removing a portion of load-bearing threads on the plug joint.
5- Can you please explain the difference between a bar of steel that is cold-rolled and a modern gun barrel that is formed by cold-rolling or cold hammer forging? I ask because in another thread you said that rolled threads were stronger than cut threads however the thread rolling process is done cold ... and if you're cutting threads in the breech or on the plug, are you not making a weaker connection and should therefore seek out barrels and plugs with threads that are formed in a cold-rolling process? Reference your statement:Bolts have rolled threads which are much stronger than cut threads. Re: powder chamber on breech plugs « Reply #32 on: December 17, 2010, 10:56:51 PM »
In this thread you stated:
I have no idea what the hammer forging process entails[/u] but I suspect that the barrels are stress relieved afterwards. Its not done because its the best way to make a good barrel its done because its CHEAP in the long run and not very labor intensive.[/u] Re: To proof or not to proof a barrel. « Reply #53 on: January 21, 2011, 11:38:36 PM »
If you don't know what the hammer forging process is as you claim in the first sentence, how can your very next sentence be presented as a statement of fact condemning hammer forged barrels? Would you not need to have at least a basic working knowledge of the process and outcomes in order to make the statements you did in the second sentence of the quote above? Sorry Dan, that's just confusing when you say you don't know anything about X but in the very next sentence say with absolute fact that X is bad ... doesn't make sense to me and some clarity would be in order to explain your conflicting statements.
And, can you please explain the difference is between forming steel stock by cold-rolling and making a nitro shotgun barrel using a cold-rolling process? Again, I'm asking for clarification on your conflicting statements because it's just not making sense to me that you praise cold-rolled bolts as being superior in strength to a machined fastener but then make the statement that anything cold-rolled is inferior to something that's machined.
Need some clarity on this statement too Dan:
I would not equate the gun barrel makers not quenching and annealing GB quality steels after all machining processes are done with the practice of using low quality cold rolled steel for barrels. Re: To proof or not to proof a barrel. « Reply #53 on: January 21, 2011, 11:38:36 PM »
You lost me on that one Dan ... Are you saying that gun barrel makers don't heat-treat after all the work is done, and if so, does that not go against what is clearly stated in number 4 of the LaSalle letter concerning gun barrel quality steel that clearly states the barrel must be heat-treated after ALL work is done? Is your second sentence implying that all cold-rolled is low-quality or are now making the distinction that there is a difference between "low-quality cold-rolled stock" and "high-quality cold-rolled stock"? Not arguing, just asking you to clarify your statements.
6- After you overcharge the barrel and it doesn't blow up, what inspection method (IE: X-ray, ultrasound, eddie current?) do you use to ensure that the overcharge did not cause internal fracturing or some other problem that may result in a failure at a later date with a normal service charge? What pressure testing equipment do you use to show that your alleged "proof load" did not exceed the proportional limits of the barrel assembly?
-
FL:
Your lost a lot more often than you know.
Dan
-
Morning guys!!! Once again I believe this subject has run it's course.Both sides have been given the opportunity to present their case AGAIN!!This topic has been covered here many times in the past, a search through the archives will yield more on past discussions much the same as this one.
Mitch