AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: mjm46@bellsouth.net on November 15, 2011, 04:28:34 PM
-
I have a 50 Cal Rice barrel with round bottom grooves, that I shoot a .490 ball and .020 patch. I've been thinking about sizing down the ball to be able to finger start the ball. I tried a thinner patch but didn't like the results. I seen a lyman moulds available in .470 and .465 would either of these be a better choice or would they be too loose?
-
No hands on experience with those sizes but I would think they'd be too loose and accuracy would suffer.
On the other hand, not knowing what your goals are, the resultant accuracy might be fine.
As an alternative to buying a mould you might not be able to use, you might try some .480"s from TOW.
RBall hits the nail on the head. For close range shooting, with the accuracy of a tightly loaded smoothbore, thumb starting in a rifle will work just fine - note - "with the accuracy of a smoothbore."
A .020" patch and .490" ball barely gets to the bottom of the grooves of a Rice barrel. A thicker patch or larger ball will shoot even better than your current load does. Loosening the load is not the way to go and maintain accuracy you are already getting, in my experience.
-
Ssssshhh! Don't you guys tip him off that loose = inaccurate! There'll be one more we can always beat then! ;-)
-
Gentlemen,
In no way do I want this to come across as sarcastic, but is it really that big a deal to correctly load a rifle for best accuracy? There are none of us that need to consider rampaging Comanches. Those of us who hunt in areas where there are large predators do have an issue with a fast second shot but I prefer the carrying of a pistol to provide for this. I guess I really don't understand why the use of a short starter, if needed, is not to be considered. Before anyone catches me up on commonly held historical theories, I'm well aware of the arguments put forward by re-enactors on whether or not short-starters were used in the old days. There is a difference between hunting and re-enacting, I will admit.
I like to make good, clean shots on game. If a rifle needs to be short started for best accuracy I will do it. If I can develop an accurate load that can be loaded without the starter, fine, but putting the ball where I want it is the first consideration. And, please don't think that I'm making a pitch for every modern re-invented gimcrack that has perverted the muzzle loading scene in the name of efficiency. The muzzle loading rifle, managed with the many different traditional methods is more than up to the task of cleanly taking game or winning matches.
Submitted with all due respect,
Steve
-
If one wants to do away with using the short starter, a coned muzzle would be the best route. Much better than an easy loading undersized patch/ball comb.. That would degrade velocity and accuracy to a much higher degree.
-
I think the evidence is pretty conclusive that pre-1820's riflemen did not use short starters, that there's no good evidence that coning was used, but that at least some shooters got very good accuracy, certainly better than smoothbore (else why bother with rifles at all?). The thing that's so hard to know is what they did use? Loose ball-patch combinations, moderately tight started with a blow from the knife butt (ala Hershel House) and then seated with the ramrod, or? At least some shooters have reported good accuracy with looser than ideal loads, and I think it's worth experimenting with. The question is, how loose can you go and still get good (that is, better than smoothbore) accuracy?
-
Ssssshhh! Don't you guys tip him off that loose = inaccurate! There'll be one more we can always beat then! ;-)
Harry! You let the cat outta the bag,dayum! Dintcha know, some guys LIKE washing their bores after every shot?
-
Modern muzzleloaders to me represent the ideal rifle for those who have no knowledge of any American History that occured before noon yesterday. Powder pellets,stainless steel barrels,,bullets wrapped in plastic and then fired with a shotgun primer don't make it with this old geezer. The term"Modern muzzle loader"is an oxymoron.
If I were going to hunt in an area where there was the possibility of meeting something that views me as a menu item,the muzzle loader I would choose would be an English .451 sporting rifle which differs from the .451 target rifle because the sporting rfle has a loading rod under the barrel A 500+grain hollow point
backed with 90-100 grains of 3fg works wonders in a situation like this.It is also a fast reload in as much as the word "fast" can be applied to a muzzle loader. In an area where a dangerous critter isn't likely to be a problem,a round ball rifle of adequate caliber would be my choice.I built a 58 caliber,steel trimmed,walnut full stock flintlock rifle with a Nock style conventional breech plug with an integral tang.
When we started restoring our 105 year old house,I sold it to Dixie Gun Works. It had a 1x36 Green Mountain barrel. It had my Ketland lock and a single trigger.I make set triggers but don't really like them on anything I am shooting
and the type I make will work set or unset.
Bob Roller
-
Lots of folks at many different points along the way of traditional arms, shooting, hunting, etc...speaking only for myself, I'm not a living historian, not a purist...just a shooter / hunter who enjoys pursuing 100% of all shooting & hunting with Flintlock rifles and smoothbores.
RB, the "living history" part is a bunch of fun also. It takes as much research as the type of rifle you research/buy/build. I can see it all know. RB in his dandy Richmond gentleman's coat ,brockaide westket,fancy cocked hat,Ben Franklin shoes and a fancy Virginian smoothrifle!
If available in your area, shooting matches are great fun.Meeting people who are also in the "sport" is a treasure. Lots of shooting tips always shared by many. I love the fellowship of other shooters in our wonderful fraternity.I think you would too.IMHO of coarse.
I cheat!...with my short starter! :'(
-
If one wants to do away with using the short starter, a coned muzzle would be the best route. Much better than an easy loading undersized patch/ball comb.. That would degrade velocity and accuracy to a much higher degree.
Degrading accuracy is a mistake if it is significant. So either use a starter or learn to load without one. Chances are that using a 530 rather than a 535, for example, will solve the problem with minimal accuracy loss.
I would guess that anyone that can load a coned barrel can load a crowned one with the same ball size if they just do it rather than obsessing over it or believing it can't be done just because someone said so.
Dan
-
Or just use a straight starter....
-
Swampwalker,
Personally, I think it makes sense that the early-day rifleman probably used a knife-handle to seat a ball. I've done exactly the same thing many times....and still do on some rifles. It can be hard on your knife-handle over time. However, in my book of definitions a knife-handle short starter is still a type of short starter. I'd just rather use a "typical" short-starter if it's needed than split the scales on my knife.
I'm in the same boat as Roundball...I have always enjoyed using old technology but I would not class myself as a living historian, although history and it's application to modern life has always been a passion with me. Balancing what I read about history with common sense and personal experience has also been a passion.
Again, submitted with all due respect,
Steve
Steve
-
Now, this is WAY out there in left field. No cone, but it does have a sloping, 2/10" deep crown that needs no starter to push a .398" pure lead ball wrapped with a .022" denim patch, flush with the muzzle. It does need the end of the rod, though. Once there, a choked up rod can seat it - quite easily - for me & I suspect anyone who'd done much shooting. Once down 10" or so, all I need are finger and thumb on the rod.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv638%2FDarylS%2FP6101151.jpg&hash=49b6c270de31dac5926bacb2cac13358e68e2c76)
This 'shape' was created by using a tapered stone wrapped with 400grit and an electric drill. Yes, it's concentric. Perhaps a modicum of skill is needed - as that's all I have.
Note the little 'ding' on the lip at 1:00 in the picture - THAT is the reason for a crown. That little dimple does not effect accuracy.
This crown, with the above combination and 65gr. 3F GOEX shoots into 1/2" at 50 yards hand held, from a rest.
-
Try some experiments and see. A patch/ball that will start with finger pressure will have greater gas blow-by and consequently lower velocity. This means that to get the same velocity and trajectory you will have to increase the powder charge. The patch may or may not grip the rifling tightly enough to inpart consistent spin to the ball so accuracy is likely to suffer. But every rifle is a law unto itself. You may find a combination that allows you to eliminate the short starter and still get accuracy that is acceptable to you.
Storm
-
Going to a loose ball seems to leave more fouling than a good, tight prb.
-
I'm having a .48 caliber barrel built and I bought a .470 ball mould from Track. I made about 20 balls or so after I got the mould and out of curiosity shot them from a Cabela's Hawken .50. Patched with denim, it shot surprisingly well.
-
Man some of this stuff never ends. I love reading about the tight loads, thick patches and sub minute accuracy. All of my rifles and smoothbores are coned!! I can thumb start everyone of them at a run. I have shot the sub minute stuff for years out to 1000 yds. and it was fun. I don't think our fore fathers worried about what ten thousands their patches were. They simply shot their Indians or game and went home alive. If you want to carry a hammer and a short starter do it. I'll be the only one with a grin on my face, maybe. All of our matches are off hand so my accuracy need not be sub minute. They are just darn fun to build and shoot. If I ever find a chunk gun match within a couple hundred miles I will build the rifle for the discipline. Until then lets shoot! Bob
-
Interesting, I'm laughing right now.
-
Well, I got to say that loading on the run is not something I am interested in doing at the age of 67- running is a thing of the past. What I am interested in is shooting to point of aim whether I'm shooting at a squirrel's head, a deer, a metal critter on a woods walk, or an offhand target at a match. To accomplish this, I use a short starter and a ball no more than .005 under bore size and a patch that mics out at .018". My favotite rifle presently is a .36 caliber with a Green Mountain barrel. In this rifle I shoot a .360" ball with my patching cut at the muzzle and lubed with saliva unless I'm hunting, then I lube with olive oil. This works for me and I really don't care if the over glorified "longhunters" of lore used on or not. By the way, I always cut 1/2" off a barrel and recrown it myself ala Daryl.
Be Well,
Bill Ridout
-
OK, I'm not looking for sub minute groups. I'm just looking for something a little easier to load without loosing all my accuracy. I've tried tighter balls .495 and .500 in this rifle and patches from .010, .015, .018. Tight combos were impossible to load unless you swabbed after every shot. Too much work, I do this for funnnn!!! I finally settled on the .490 with .020 or .018 Patch combo. But it requires a short starter.
I'm just remembering an old Dixie Gun Works rifle that I bought in 1974 .45 Cal with a .440 Ball and unknown patch thickness (like chambray shirt material, maybe .015) on that rifle I did smooth the crown carefully with fine paper and crocus cloth (similar to some I've seen posted on this site). It also had flat bottom rifleing and a straight barrel (nose heavy). Could thumb load that rifle all day. But that roman nose stock would beat the $#@* out of my cheek. Unfortunately that rifle was stolen in 2006, I miss it. I've been very heasitant to modify the crown on my present rifle, even though I know it will improve loading and improve patch performance, because everyone seems to say it will DESTROY accuracy. What say Y'all.
-
Micah,
Some years back we did an experiment on crowns at the shop where I gunsmithed. Customers would come in asking for a specific type of crown, 11 degree, recessed, or whatever and the question often came up of which one was better. I decided to find out. I had an old K98 Mauser that I was going to sporterize for a customer. The original barrel was still very shootable so before removing it and installing a new barrel I tried different crowns. First I simply faced off the muzzle and lightly polished it to remove burrs. In other words, no crown at all. I took the rifle to the range and shot it at 100 yards from a solid bench. I recorded the information on the target and retained it. Back at the shop, the rifle went back into the lathe and I cut an 11 degree crown. Another trip to the range and another recorded target. Finally, I cut at recessed crown and fired one last target. There was no detectable difference between any of the groups. All three, fired on the same day from the same location under the same weather conditions using the same box of ammo by the same shooter were 4" center to center. The only variable was the type of crown. We used those targets to show customers that the type of crown doesn't make any difference. Of course, shooters being shooters, many didn't believe us and would still insist on whatever type of crown they preferred. We didn't care because we knew that any crown would work.
I believe that crowning began as a way to make loading a muzzleloader easier. It also serves to protect the rifling nearest the muzzle. The most important part of a barrel is that last little bit that releases a projectile into free flight. A ding or uneven wear there will degrade accuracy of even the best barrel. So change that crown to your hearts content. As long as the crown is centered and even it will work.
Storm
-
Mica, I don't think it will destroy accuracy. If done carefully using your thumb or finger and rotating the barrel and your finger at the same time as Daryl has described. Coning will destroy accuracy, as it did in my experimentation, at least what I define as accuracy, but to each their own.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi257.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh217%2Frobin101st%2Fpotpori%25201%2FIM000554-1.jpg&hash=ced885fa47f68c940496b1707fbeaadee6be6a29)
Five shot group off the bench at fifty yards. This barrel gave me fits with both accuracy and fouling. I gave the crown the Daryl treatment, used a sloppy wet spit patch, ala Leatherbelly, and I can shoot all day, no swiping. I do use a short starter, and for winter hunting, mink oil. No change in accuracy. Good luck
-
Daryl
What is the exact treatment for your muzzle/crown?
-
I sent you a private message, Micah. The others here have read it many times and are probably getting quiete tired of it.
-
I don't have a window on history, but it makes sense to me that short starters weren't used in the past. I rather suspect that a stout smack on the side of the patch knife started that prb far enough to push it home with the rod. Before I started using pre-cut patching, I used a long strip of patch material that I cut at the muzzle with a big belt knife after laying the side of the blade on the sprue & smacking it with a closed fist. It worked well... I'm not sure what switched me to pre-cutting my patches.
-
Robbie, your approach is identical to mine. But your accuracy is better! Nice rifle gun too.
-
Mica, I don't think it will destroy accuracy. If done carefully using your thumb or finger and rotating the barrel and your finger at the same time as Daryl has described. Coning will destroy accuracy, as it did in my experimentation, at least what I define as accuracy, but to each their own.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi257.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh217%2Frobin101st%2Fpotpori%25201%2FIM000554-1.jpg&hash=ced885fa47f68c940496b1707fbeaadee6be6a29)
Five shot group off the bench at fifty yards. This barrel gave me fits with both accuracy and fouling. I gave the crown the Daryl treatment, used a sloppy wet spit patch, ala Leatherbelly, and I can shoot all day, no swiping. I do use a short starter, and for winter hunting, mink oil. No change in accuracy. Good luck
Hmmm :-\. With a little more work you might start getting hunting accuracy. ;D
Oh, and that rifle is something else!
-
No more secrets for Robbie,the SOB! :P LOL!! Look at that group! Daryls,Harnic, no more "tricks" for these guys, dangit!
That must be an Anglish(Sassanach) gun, looks like it's driven on the left side! Very nice! I can't even tell if you've used a short starter on this rifle! Short starting perverts! hehehe
-
Sorry Leatherbelly, I forgot my oath of silence, but I promise, I' won't say a word about that gal from Hoboken! ::)
-
Yeah - yer right, LB - time to cease and desist from this line of posts. Mum's the word from now on.
-
Robie: That is fine looking rifle.
Group ain't bad either ;D
-
I believe that crowning began as a way to make loading a muzzleloader easier. It also serves to protect the rifling nearest the muzzle. The most important part of a barrel is that last little bit that releases a projectile into free flight. A ding or uneven wear there will degrade accuracy of even the best barrel. So change that crown to your hearts content. As long as the crown is centered and even it will work.
Storm
[/quote]
I agree! And when I relieve the crown on a factory muzzle crown I use a wood lathe tapered plug about 3" long a tad steeper than the factory crown and some fine paper . No not to the degree that most consider it conened! It doesn't take much to relieve the crown and be able to then load a .005 under ball w/.018 patch combination and a short starter. Compared to most factory barrel crown/bores which only allow a .010 under ball w/.018 patch and a short starter. I don't know why anyone would go at the muzzle with thumb or fingers and abrasive paper?
-
I had Charlie Wallingford build me a very nice .58 cal. rifle with one of Ed Rayl's round botton rifled barrels, a few years back. Charlie had worked up a load using a .570 roundball and a .015 patch. The load was very accurate but I had problems short starting the ball.
I did some experimenting and came up with a load tht was just as accurate using a .562 RB and .015 pure linen patch. I no longer use a short starter, I could probably thumb start the ball but prefer to use my patch knife or the ramrod.
I used to be a proponent of "The tighter the better" I no longer believe that (Muzzleloaders only :P). It is possible to work up a load using a smaller bullet without loss of accuracy. Try a smaller ball using pure linen patching. The linen doesn't burn up and it's harder to blow holes in.
Centershot
-
I believe that crowning began as a way to make loading a muzzleloader easier. It also serves to protect the rifling nearest the muzzle. The most important part of a barrel is that last little bit that releases a projectile into free flight. A ding or uneven wear there will degrade accuracy of even the best barrel. So change that crown to your hearts content. As long as the crown is centered and even it will work.
Storm
54bucks - I agree! And when I relieve the crown on a factory muzzle crown I use a wood lathe tapered plug about 3" long a tad steeper than the factory crown and some fine paper . No not to the degree that most consider it conened! It doesn't take much to relieve the crown and be able to then load a .005 under ball w/.018 patch combination and a short starter. Compared to most factory barrel crown/bores which only allow a .010 under ball w/.018 patch and a short starter. I don't know why anyone would go at the muzzle with thumb or fingers and abrasive paper?
Because it's easy to do it perfectly every time and anyone with the least amount of skill can do it. Too, it doesn't need any power equipment. Power equipment makes crowning go faster, of course - a lathe is best - perfect crowns in 15 seconds including the polishing time. No tapered tools required, just a finger tip and some emery or paper to smoothly radius the machine cut crown.
-
Gentlemen,
I thought that it might be interesting to some if I posted the measurements of the muzzle on the vintage flintlock D. Boyer match rifle. I'm confident that the bore is original and the crown is as original. I'm thinking, after showing the rifle to several gentlemen with considerable experience in dating original rifles, that it was made in the mid-1820's. The rifle shoots very well; in fact, as good as any of my other rifles. It has won the three turkey matches I have used it in here in Cody with the best ten-shot string being 4.789 inches.
The crown has had the lands and grooves relieved which is somewhat reflected in the first measurement. I will try to get a good photo of this muzzle and post sometime it tomorrow. I took measurements with gauge pins and caliper, to the best of my ability, and I think one can see what sort of freed muzzle this is. The rifle loads easily with a short starter and I believe I could load it with just the rod held short. I prefer the starter because it is more consistent in starting the ball. When you shoot with the cutthroats that I do, one can leave no stone unturned...
Land measurement.
Measurement starting at muzzle- .510
At .150 depth- .500
At .200 depth- .492
At .235 depth- .491
At .349 depth- .490
At .493 depth- .489
Measurement at beginning of 6-inch choked portion- .488
Measure at 12 inches- .489
Measurement at breech- .490
This barrel is a uniform 1-48 twist, wide lands, narrow grooves and I shoot 65 grs. of 1 1/2 Swiss with a .490 ball and .015 linen patch, patches lubed with sperm oil and squeezed almost dry in a vise.
This barrel has obviously been lapped and freed at the muzzle when I look at it with the bore scope. I am confident that it is representative of what the old-timers were doing when they built a rifle for match shooting. Could one call it "coned". Possibly. I think "freed" is a better description or possibly a "shallow cone". It loads very nicely...after seating the ball it pushes smoothly through the choke and very easily to the breech. However, as it weighs about 16 pounds, I haven't tried to load it on the run.
I also reviewed the Stutzenberger articles and they were as interesting as I remember. However, there were several things I took issue with. Most notably, the shooting was not done from machine rest which leaves, in my mind, too many variables depending upon the shooter's consistent management of recoil. Second, three-shot strings were used which I don't believe give a truly accurate picture of load performance. Third, I would have rather seen a match load developed and then experiments done with varying depth of coning, not going the full-depth on the first alteration of the muzzle. I did note that, given the data, with very few exceptions coning seem to degrade accuracy. It was an interesting article, however, and adds much to our collective knowledge of the topic.
Just something to cogitate on...
Steve
-
I'm thinking that the guys who loaded while running didn't even bother with a patch, but just dumped powder down the barrel, spit a round ball in behind, and kept the muzzle up till they shot. Just guessing, but I can't imagine Lewis Wetzel trying to use a short starter while escaping a mad Shawano!
-
Hi Steve
As I am sure you know this is very similar, though you are more accurate in detail, to what Baird and T.K. Dawson describe for the "Hoffman and Campbell" Hawken rifle in Baird's "Hawken Rifles the Mountain Man's Choice".
Dan
-
Dan,
I may have described this crown incorrectly when I said it was on a target rifle. It is, but I would want this style of crown on a hunting rifle as well. I really think that many of the old rifles that have been described as having been "funneled" at the muzzle from the ramrod were crowned in this fashion on purpose. You and I have discussed how hard it would be to "funnel" a muzzle with a hickory ramrod...for the most part, I don't buy the "rod-wear" thing.
I may try to get access to some of the Hawkens at the Cody Museum and measure crowns. It might prove very interesting, especially since they have several that show very little use.
Steve
-
Dan,
I may have described this crown incorrectly when I said it was on a target rifle. It is, but I would want this style of crown on a hunting rifle as well. I really think that many of the old rifles that have been described as having been "funneled" at the muzzle from the ramrod were crowned in this fashion on purpose. You and I have discussed how hard it would be to "funnel" a muzzle with a hickory ramrod...for the most part, I don't buy the "rod-wear" thing.
I may try to get access to some of the Hawkens at the Cody Museum and measure crowns. It might prove very interesting, especially since they have several that show very little use.
Steve
Given the amount these guns were shot, compared to how much we shoot ours, that must be an accurate statement It wold be impossible for them to accomplish this muzzle 'treatment' with rod wear. Now, Taylor and I shoot quite a lot- we don't use muzzle protectors - never have, yet aside from one rifle, no muzzle wear can be seen nor measured.
Hatchet Jack, in our group has never used a muzzle protector either, and had only every used the rifle's hickory rod, for loading as well as cleaning. His 1/2 stocked flint Hawken has way over 15,000 shots through it & shows no muzzle wear at all. Yes - that's one rifle - but- I can show you the rod wear in my .69's muzzle as it shows in the picture - one groove shows a slight 'cup' from the rod. This barrel has approximately 5,000 shots fired from it, I suspect many more thousand than anyone in the 19th century fired.
In the past I have used a tool steel rod or a nylon rod for cleaning, but only the hickory for loading. We know from a previous test that hickory wears the least of the rod materials, with nylon the next in line. Tool steel was 3rd most wear, with stainless more so and of course, straight fiberglass acting pretty much like a round file. I did not test a plastic coated rod.
-
The effects of tool steel,nylon,fibreglass,and hickory wearing barrel steel could easily be tested. But I doubt it would support some commonly held notions regarding muzzlewear and ramrod composition.
-
Granted, RB - modern steels are much harder or tougher against rod abrasion than wrought iron - but - wear is relative - how many times or how many shots are/were normally fired from those antiques which still with us today - those which show even enlargement, heretofor called rod wear?
We do know that rods don't wear muzzles concentrically - if they were worn with an oval groove, (magnify the wear present in my own barrel), their oval enlarged condition would correctly be called rod wear. If evenly enlarged all the way around - no way.
-
The effects of tool steel,nylon,fibreglass,and hickory wearing barrel steel could easily be tested. But I doubt it would support some commonly held notions regarding muzzlewear and ramrod composition.
Sorry- I should have qualified that more but I thought it was clear - those rod material effects have been tested and the only reason I brought them up, was to show the hickory rod wears very slightly, to not at all over the course of the test - of all the materials tested, the normal wooden rod wore the barrel the least - actually barely wore off the modern bluing on the barrel stub used - in a current, what I'd call a soft steel barrel of 12L14 compositon. Granted in an iron barrel, we're told the wear would be faster - how much faster? That's the question or test that should be completed.
Theory is fine but proof is needed. Stating the enlarged muzzles were from rod wear is a theory - stating it isn't is a theory - all of this is theory and opinion. With an open mind, we try to look at known facts to arrive at an educated guess/opinion/theory. That's all.
-
Gentlemen,
I'm not as experienced as some at lapping, but if one wants to get a perspective on the whole "rod-wear" theory take a stub end of 12L14 barrel (which is relatively soft), measure it accurately, and then try to enlarge it even just a quarter-thou with a hickory rod. Use it dry and remember that your loading rod is much smoother and is hopefully being held centered in the bore, rather than making it bear hard on the steel. I think you'll have a new "feel" for rod-wear.
Crown damage from incorrect loading/cleaning is a far more likely cause for barrels going south. And how many barrels, both old and new, have been re-crowned, lapped, re-cut or replaced simply because the shooter is looking for a handy excuse to explain poor personal performance. The customer is always right, especially if you are a starving gunsmith.
Steve
-
Gentlemen,
I'm not as experienced as some at lapping, but if one wants to get a perspective on the whole "rod-wear" theory take a stub end of 12L14 barrel (which is relatively soft), measure it accurately, and then try to enlarge it even just a quarter-thou with a hickory rod. Use it dry and remember that your loading rod is much smoother and is hopefully being held centered in the bore, rather than making it bear hard on the steel. I think you'll have a new "feel" for rod-wear.
Crown damage from incorrect loading/cleaning is a far more likely cause for barrels going south. And how many barrels, both old and new, have been re-crowned, lapped, re-cut or replaced simply because the shooter is looking for a handy excuse to explain poor personal performance. The customer is always right, especially if you are a starving gunsmith.
Steve
Well said! You don't need to be some self claimed expert on lapping to understand logic. Perhaps those experts also embed the slug with hickory,fibreglass,or brass to lap the bore?????
-
Today I finished some small non gun parts made from 12L14 and to say it is "relatively soft" is an understatement. It offers little resistence to the lathe tool which in this case were Cobalt. I want no part of a gun barrel made from it and would like to know WHO started using this and similar materials for gun barrels.NO steel mill will ever recommend it for that use and I hope those do use it for barrels that do carry a high dollar product liabilty insurance policy. I don't know who's making what anymore other than Jim McLemore who makes barrels from 4150 be they for a muzzle loader or a high velocity long range rifle. 12L14 was the material that put Douglas out of the muzzle loader game
along with the shabby attitude of so called gun makers that thought anything,no matter what it was should be cheaper than dirt if it was for a muzzle loader.
Bob Roller
-
Bob - we've been over this so many times it's getting boring- the same posts form the same people, every time. It also results in a thread being locked. Let's not change the direction of the thread to barrel steels.
-
Wait up....forgive mny ignorance, and I may be totally wrong, but I thought the old timers that were skelp welding up hand made barrels were using dead soft iron for the job? Is 12L14 softer than that? Even so I would hate to try and cone it with only a wooden tool on purpose, let alone by accident.
TC
-
There is a LOT of difference between 12L14 and the old dead soft "iron"barrels. As I understand 12L14 and explainedto me by a metallurgist of long experience here is the problem.12L14 starts as a hot rolled material and as such it is not really round so trying to use it in a lathe is next to impossible.It is the cold rolled so it can be used in a lathe either with a chuck or collets. but this cold rolling process causes internal stresses that can manifest themselves in the form of a ruptured barrel. The metallurgist called these types of blow outs "hoop stresses"which is what happens to a balloon when it is internally stress beyond its limits.
As a screw material,it is a fine thing and I use it for all my lock screws as it can be machined at 300 feet per minute and takes fine threads but as I stated earlier,there is no steel mill that would ever recommend it for use in a gun barrel and as earlier stated,it takes only ONE blown barrel to make a big problem for a lot of people.
I hope this makes sense.
Bob Roller
-
Wait up....forgive mny ignorance, and I may be totally wrong, but I thought the old timers that were skelp welding up hand made barrels were using dead soft iron for the job? Is 12L14 softer than that? Even so I would hate to try and cone it with only a wooden tool on purpose, let alone by accident.
TC
There are number of threads that address the differences in steels used if you search the site you will find a lot of information.
However, a steel that machines easily need not be soft. It is softer than some 4150s etc but this is a relative term.
Dan