AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: Eric Kettenburg on February 15, 2017, 05:53:40 AM
-
Could we have an intelligent discussion ---> here? <--- Would seem to be the proper section. "Gun Building." I would seriously value input from metallurgists who know that of which they speak.
BTW, while perhaps some may consider this topic 'beating a dead horse' etc., I could say the same about the ba-zillion threads dealing with aqua fortis, or finishes, or inletting methods etc.
I don't recall any of those repetitive threads getting locked out.
It's a legitimate topic that SHOULD be of interest to everyone here, given that we really can't make an appropriate firelock with a piece of copper tubing...
Can't see a discussion of "Gun Building" not involving the barrel material itself. And I would like to learn more, as long as it is verifiable information.
To begin: I am aware that the use of 12L14 for a gun barrel, even a blackpowder barrel, is apparently a highly controversial topic. So let's set that aside for a moment, as it's certainly being used and is probably the most commonly used material for black powder barrels.
Has anyone with a metallurgical background conducted a study, or is aware of a study, which examines what may be happening with a barrel of such material over time and use? Not speculation; any kind of study which has really scientifically looked at the effect of repetitive pressure and 'typical' shooting use upon the structure of the steel? I would be interested to know this.
-
I always wondered why modern barrels were not made with chrome moly and just be done with the pressure problems to begin with. Some of it doesn't make sense to me.
-
I'm going to assume that first and foremost, perhaps there's a cost difference. Second, I know pretty much any steel is probably going to be harder on tooling than 12L14. Rayl barrels are wonderful shooters but an absolute bear to file; furthermore, if you like to cold form dovetails (lift the ends w/ small chisels in other words) it's a cakewalk with 12L whereas with whatever Ed is/was using, it is a whole different story. It's certainly not nearly as cost effective to machine barrels when the cutters are wearing at a much faster rate?
-
I always wondered why modern barrels were not made with chrome moly and just be done with the pressure problems to begin with. Some of it doesn't make sense to me.
I'm not in the biz, but have messed with some metal. Raw material costs and time/tooling costs might push the barrel prices beyond what the "great hordes" will pay for a bbl?
As Mr. Roller and anyone else who has sold a LOT of good parts probably knows, they are a CHEAP bunch-us Americans. We're about the 8th generation brought up on "cheaper is better". This may explain why we eat such horrible $#@* too.
It's only old goats and wise folks who avoid the 'bargain basement' mentality on a daily basis to get the best satisfaction from the money they spend.
Also, there are the hordes that want it "now". The micro-wave/instant potatoes bunch. They think they cannot wait for a few months. They don't plan for the future much, they just expect everything to be ready when they want it.
I felt better about 12L14 until I saw a piece rip fracture in the machine shop. I have 4 more bbls of it and then I can make the decision to buy more of the same or to explore the other options. Maybe naval brass is next. Sorry no help to your actual topic Eric.
-
My two cents would start by saying this is a science question and science needs data. Taking a handheld laser analyser/ spectrometer (scrap metal dealers have these) to the next show could help determine the composition of a number of original barrels. You would then posess information which would be quite valuable to the entire ML industry. In my opinion it is a compromise between material strength, workability by the small shop crafts person, and performance safety according to not over loading the product.
-
I'm going to assume that first and foremost, perhaps there's a cost difference. Second, I know pretty much any steel is probably going to be harder on tooling than 12L14. Rayl barrels are wonderful shooters but an absolute bear to file; furthermore, if you like to cold form dovetails (lift the ends w/ small chisels in other words) it's a cakewalk with 12L whereas with whatever Ed is/was using, it is a whole different story. It's certainly not nearly as cost effective to machine barrels when the cutters are wearing at a much faster rate?
Rayl uses 8620
Cost difference is about $30 bucks more for material costs, at least for 86L20, per a barrel maker I spoke with recently.
Another maker I corresponded with said that he could make smooth bore round barrels out of 8620, but his rifling machine and planer were only set up for 12L14, so I think it isn't just a matter of wear but also how the blades are sharpened (I imagine that it is like the difference between a tool set up for softwood and one set up for hardwood).
-
There was a booklet made a few years back, "THE DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OF MUZZLE-LOADING RIFLE BARRELS" by Jerry Cunningham. Jerry worked for Montana Rifle Barrel Co. at the at time and they supplied all the barrels which were machined from 12L14 or 1214 Bismuth solid round bar stock. Jerry had to SEVERLY overload the barrels to get them to fail.
Example:
.32 X 13/16-12L14 octagon, wall thickness .237
200 grains powder 2 patched balls on powder.... NO DAMAGE
400 grains powder 4 patched balls on powder..... BURST IN TWO PIECES
Example:
.54 X .730 round 12L14, wall thickness .080
600 grains powder, 1 patched ball on powder.....BULGE .010
600 grains powder, 3 patched balls on powder....BURST IN TWO PIECES
These are just a few examples of the two dozen or so barrels that were tested.
-
Cabin Creek is now offering wrought iron barrels on a custom basis, so I suppose we should include w.i. in this discussion ??
I have a couple of Ed Rayl's barrels [steel] and yes..they do shoot well, however they are not my favourites as far as working / engraving etc. I find it strange that he chooses this material for reasons of strength , and yet is one of the few makers who offers bronze/brass barrels . I have no scientific back ground, so can only offer my opinion based on 30 + years of usage. My preference is for Getz, Rice, and then Colerain in that order. I know that many will argue that materials aren't suitable, however I've never seen evidence that any mishap [ few that there are] was within the realm of normal loading procedures.
-
Hi,
Eric's original question was about any research or data showing effects of long-term use on modern muzzleloading barrels made from 12L14 steel. He is not asking about proofing. Perhaps there are some metalurgical studies about the alloy but I doubt any about long-term use as muzzleloading barrels. As in some kinds of medical research, you could look at retrospective data. For example, you could sample survey shooters using guns with 12L14 barrels and another group using Green Mountain barrels (1137) and control for caliber, load size, number of rounds shot, barrel dimensions, etc using statistical methods such as proportional hazards modeling. The outcome would be the relative risk of failure between the 2 kinds of barrels. However, you must have some failures in your data, and I don't believe that many 12L14 or 1137 barrels have failed over the years, which may tell you something by itself. That kind of study might actually be more useful because it uses data from normal use.
dave
-
Remembering Bob Chadwick, He met with a metallurgist from a foundry in the Philadelphia area , must have been in the 1950s, and a formula for barrel steel/iron was devised that was the closest thing to wrought iron that could be made. If I remember correctly Bob was a 4th generation gunsmith. The barrels he made were outstanding shooters.
I know that Bob Hoyt ended up with some of his blanks and thought very highly of then. By the way Mr Chadwick
used a old style square reamer which produced a tapered bore. I don't know if Mr Chadwicks 'son would know anything about the formula.
-
However, you must have some failures in your data, and I don't believe that many 12L14 or 1137 barrels have failed over the years, which may tell you something by itself. That kind of study might actually be more useful because it uses data from normal use.
dave
As far as failures are concerned, I think that there are a wide variety of variables that need to be considered. Aside from age, use and abuse some of these variables could be powder type (2f, 3f, 4f), obstructions, weak breach, too deep a dovetail slot cut, the use of smokeless powder (it happens), theres probably more than the ones I've mentioned.
Modern cartridge barrels have failures as well.....sorry, I may be treading into an area where we aren't allowed to discuss, but lets face it: we dabble in a hobby that if you don't pay attention to what you are doing there could be dire concequences.
-
My interest is really within the perspective of modern - 21st century - liability issues, which I think should be a concern of anyone building a firearm (ok I know these are not technically considered firearms by ATF or most sane states) today. We know the material used for the old 18th and early 19th century barrels; it was iron of varying grades with a welded seam. OK. I want to set that aside because first of all, save for a 10K to 20K+ piece nowadays, it's so rare as to be pointless to discuss it. Of course one can obtain barrels drilled from true iron round stock, I've got plenty of it but I doubt I'll ever use it. Again, liability issues. Barrel makers in 1780 could probably use anything they wanted as there was no need to worry about Cefalo and Associates or any of the other liability greaseballs who advertise round the clock trying to rile up anyone who's ever gotten a splinter into a class action. So 12L14 seems to have become the de rigueur material for long blackpowder barrels at least since the 1970s if not earlier. I am interested in the 'why' of this, and interested in other materials which may be more suitable, and I'm interested as I originally posted in the existence of some type of scientific study as to the long term effects of pressure and stress, in various temperatures, on a barrel made of this material. The proof to destruction testing is interesting, but it really does not (to my mind) present an accurate picture because it's a one-time severe stress, and there is no follow up as far as I'm aware as to (1) how that stress affects subsequent use of the material and (2) the ability of the material to withstand such stress across all platforms and all environmental possibilities. Also, the test-to-destruction approach is only valid within the narrow parameters of a particular bore or cross-sectional diameter. What about others? There are certainly a graduated pressure as the projectile moves from the beech to the muzzle, much as there is a graduated taper in most modern barrels ("swamped") that we use.
Just thinking out loud; the other threads on the contemporary board that were locked out have really piqued my curiosity.
-
Muzzle Blasts 1985, James Kelly Michigan, "The Strength of a gun barrel" It was a three part series. It is worth the time to read if this subject interests you.
In short the biggest issue with barrels seemed to be flaws in the steel, seems, long lead inclusions, too much sulfur. The 12L14 is extremely common in ML barrels. It appears to get brittle if over worked to cold draw the octagon shape. Other steels appear to be more flexible and less prone to fatigue. He also looked at actual pressure testing. ML pressure are much higher than many folks realize.
It is my thought that 12L14 cold drawn barrels were extremely commonly used a the time. That creates a "conformational bias" regarding failures of such barrels. Back then lots of people thought you could not load BP to dangerous pressures. Back then some mass produced rifles were not breached properly causing a very thin barrel wall ahead of the plug. All that indicates to me that at the time the arguments may have had some merit. Today I don't think that is so. We know more now and I suspect some the manufacturing practices have gotten better.
We'll never come to any generally accepted conclusion here. Some makers use leaded steel some don't choose you barrels according if you worry about this.
A search shows this subject has some up before. Maybe that 1985 article could be made a sticky?
-
Yes, that would be a good sticky. How about it Mr. Kelly? Have a copy? You are the copyright holder at this point and one of the few people who actually, truly knows about that of which we speak!
-
The reason most muzzle loading barrel makers do not use chrome moly is not just because it is harder to machine or because 12L14 is cheaper for them. at least 80% of the makers now cringe at the price of barrels and parts already. how would you feel if the cost of a Hawken barrel was say $800.00 or a 42" long swamped barrel was $1000.00. There are other factors than tool wear. The whole process is different for machining modern gun barrel steel. It flexes differently and has different reaction to stress etc etc. Any time you think something is simple you just don't know much about it.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Gun+barrels+for+sale Think about it. If there were a fair demand for them somebody would be making them. People won't pay for them. That's reality.
-
I think, Eric, that your question with regards to 12L14 was answered by yourself when you described other barrels as being tough on files and cutting dovetails and what not.
I've hand rifled quite a few barrels and the best that cut is 12L14. The worse is 4150, followed by 4140. The 1137 used by Green Mountain cut rifles very smooth. There was a time when I demonstrated rifling at some shows, one of them being the Ohio Deer & Turkey Expo. Oddly enough, at one show, not far from our booth was Tompson Center. Those guys spent more time at our booth watching and partaking in what we were doing than their own booth.
The TC guys told us how TC made barrels: button rifled as opposed to cut rifling. In pushing the button the barrel becomes so hard due to stress that it can shatter if dropped. The steel they used was 4150. To allieviate this brittle condition, the barrels were stacked in a very specific way and then cooked in an oven for a couple of days to reduce the stress and brittleness yet allow for a tough barrel.
I think, but I'm not sure, that the majority of modern blackpowder barrels are cut rifled. I think that by cut rifling (by hand) being a slower, steady process the internal stresses on a barrel don't show themselves (this is just a guess). I have seen a barrel made by a not-to-be mentioned well none maker warp severly when it was reemed by John Kleggy at Freindship (the barrel was straightened and re-rifled the following year). Seeing that, I have to believe that the warped barrel (after reeming) could have been cut rifled by force of hydraulics, that force being transformed to the barrel that though was straight (before being reemed out) was now bent and warped.
It could be said, regardless of how the barrel is made and rifled, there will always be a few that have some sort of imperfection unseen by the naked eye. We as people can't control everything.
But as far as finish work on a barrel is concerned, yes 12L14 is great to wrok with, engraves nice, files nice, takes to browning well. If the end user isn't paying attention to what he or she is doing in the loading and firing process and blows their hand off or kills themselves, then Darwin was correct. Makes you wonder how much is user error as opposed to equipment failure.
-
Not much of an authority on different types of steels but recently had a conversation about 12l14 with a friend that knows much more about steel than I do. 12l14 comes cold rolledand hot rolled not sure which most barrel makers use but it makes sense that hot rolled would be less likely to stress crack than cold rolled or drawn steel. He knew Les Bauska well and Les only used hot drawn steel. In fact Les according to my friend made modern barrels of 12l14. I wonder if all the muzzleloading barrels made from 12l14 were totaled up what the number would be. Of this number excluding Douglas how many have failed keeping in mind that some of these barrels have been in use for forty or more years. From the criticism of 12l14 on this forum you would think these barrels were failing in staggering numbers. I don't own a rifle with a Douglas barrel but I feel relatively sure all the rest have barrels of 12l14. I agree one failure or one injury is too many. But increasing the price of a barrel two or three fold will only hasten the demise of Contemporary Muzxleloaders.
-
However, you must have some failures in your data, and I don't believe that many 12L14 or 1137 barrels have failed over the years, which may tell you something by itself. That kind of study might actually be more useful because it uses data from normal use.
dave
As far as failures are concerned, I think that there are a wide variety of variables that need to be considered. Aside from age, use and abuse some of these variables could be powder type (2f, 3f, 4f), obstructions, weak breach, too deep a dovetail slot cut, the use of smokeless powder (it happens), theres probably more than the ones I've mentioned.
Modern cartridge barrels have failures as well.....sorry, I may be treading into an area where we aren't allowed to discuss, but lets face it: we dabble in a hobby that if you don't pay attention to what you are doing there could be dire concequences.
Hi Gaeckle,
That is why you match the 1137 barrels with the 12L14s because it is plausible to assume that the variables you describe will occur about the same frequency within random samples of barrels made of both metals and any differences in failure rate are owing to the barrel metal. In study design parlance, this is called "case control".
-
Not a metallurgist, but I am not sure that fatigue is a problem in iron or steel barrels that are stress relieved. There is little bending or deformation of rifle barrels. In most material fatigue studies such as on bicycle frames, the steel or other fabricated object is subjected to cyclic stress to simulate use, which typically involves "springing" the object in the same directions and with forces generated during actual use. Bicycle frames may be subjected to simulation of use of 20 years, for example. Then typically the fabricated object undergoes destructive testing to see how much of the original capacity to resist failure was lost in use.
I do not know how you simulate 100,000 rounds fired in a muzzleloading rifle barrel without actually firing it 100,000 times.
Many serious target shooters report having shot their barrels 20,000 times and some report 50,000 times.
-
I believe that Douglas barrels were button rifled so maybe that is the source of the difficulties with them if was work hardening them. Still I have several from back in the 70s and still no problems.
-
The reason most muzzle loading barrel makers do not use chrome moly is not just because it is harder to machine or because 12L14 is cheaper for them. at least 80% of the makers now cringe at the price of barrels and parts already. how would you feel if the cost of a Hawken barrel was say $800.00 or a 42" long swamped barrel was $1000.00. There are other factors than tool wear. The whole process is different for machining modern gun barrel steel. It flexes differently and has different reaction to stress etc etc. Any time you think something is simple you just don't know much about it.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Gun+barrels+for+sale Think about it. If there were a fair demand for them somebody would be making them. People won't pay for them. That's reality.
I understand and agree with Jerry regarding increased cost of rifle barrels but I am not sure that would happen. Ed Rayl's barrels are made from modern gun steel and his prices seem to be competitive with those that use 12L14.
Dennis
-
I blew a Douglas barrel years ago. Flint 1" X .50. Loaded it with 80gr 2ff then rammed the ball home then must have dumped 80grg 2ff again then short started the ball only. Blew her all to $#*!. The short started ball was still in the barrel, blew at the breech, never found the top flat, the stock was completely shattered.I got a singed eye brow and a new respect for paying attention to what you're doing when you're loading. :o I don't think it probably mattered much what the barrel was made of. Stupid is what stupid does.
-
I always wondered why modern barrels were not made with chrome moly and just be done with the pressure problems to begin with. Some of it doesn't make sense to me.
I'm not in the biz, but have messed with some metal. Raw material costs and time/tooling costs might push the barrel prices beyond what the "great hordes" will pay for a bbl?
As Mr. Roller and anyone else who has sold a LOT of good parts probably knows, they are a CHEAP bunch-us Americans. We're about the 8th generation brought up on "cheaper is better". This may explain why we eat such horrible $#@* too.
It's only old goats and wise folks who avoid the 'bargain basement' mentality on a daily basis to get the best satisfaction from the money they spend.
Also, there are the hordes that want it "now". The micro-wave/instant potatoes bunch. They think they cannot wait for a few months. They don't plan for the future much, they just expect everything to be ready when they want it.
I felt better about 12L14 until I saw a piece rip fracture in the machine shop. I have 4 more bbls of it and then I can make the decision to buy more of the same or to explore the other options. Maybe naval brass is next. Sorry no help to your actual topic Eric.
Muzzle loading activities revived in the 1930's by Bill Large,E.M.Farris,C.R.Ramsey has grown into a world wide sport/hobby.
Here in America in the 1930's it was in a deeply distressed market and has been that way for many ever since.
Today there are a good number of highly skilled individuals making new rifles and another group supplying parts like
locks,barrels and other needed hardware as a cottage industry.None of us will get rich but some have made a decent living
from these activities.Prices today seem to be out of the really distressed market and the appeal is to those who now have
the means to indulge themselves from time to time. In other words,discretionary income to play with.
As to barrel steels,I much prefer the ones made from tougher,less questionable materials than the ones geared only to price.
Bob Roller
-
In general we're guessing as to what's the most suitable MLing bbl steel......the bbl makers are usually small, private enterprises mainly owned by one individual and can hardly afford lawsuits and seeing some have been in business for a number of years, the lawsuits must be minimal These small bbl making companies can't afford a bevy of lawyers or even one lawyer on standby in case a lawsuit is filed. Or the builders and shooters of MLers don't sue....which I doubt.
This discussion is bereft of test data of the various steels used for making MLing bbls ...so why the discussion?......Fred
-
It is reported that Ed Rayl uses 8620 steel for barrels. I would never call 8620 a modern rifle barrel steel. 8620 annealed has a tensile strength of 76900psi and a yield strength of 55800psi. These specs are both lower than the specs of 12L14. 12L14 has a tensile strength of 78300 psi and a yield strength of 60200psi
These are not the only things to be considered but they are the main ones. Although 8620 will harden it will not very much because the carbon content is only .2 om average. That is a very mild steel.
It is used by some gun makers for barrels of sharps and other single shot rifles. these rifles are intended for use with black powder or very mild forms of modern powder such as 5744. A low pressure smokeless powder. 8620 is primarily used for parts that will be case hardened.
A real modern rifle barrel steel would be 4140 or 4150 heat treated. Try buying a 42" swamped barrel made of 4140 or 4150.
-
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=43044.0
Thread in shooting forum where shooters recount barrel life. So far our friend Roger Fisher is holding the record at 45,000 rounds in one barrel.
-
Could we have an intelligent discussion ---> here? <--- Would seem to be the proper section. "Gun Building." I would seriously value input from metallurgists who know that of which they speak.
Snip
We HAVE one here, very experienced, been looking at the ML barrel steel thing for DECADES, but MLs have a "kill the messenger" attitude when the subject comes up. The ONLY ONLY ONLY people in the world of gun barrels that defend cheap steels are the people that make barrels from the stuff. A friend of mine (in the gun industry at some level for decades) was having a conversation with a big name in barrels in the real world. When the 12L14 barrel steel question came up he stated that anyone who watched how cheap mill run steel was made would never use it for a gun barrel. But what would he know.
Its EXTREMELY difficult (as I found out when I was working for Shiloh) to get metallurgists to talk about gun barrels. They don't want to end up testifying in some court case. I FINALLY got an answer from a professor of metallurgy at a major university who a friend have gotten to answer the question. All he would say, and I never got his name or school, was "why would anyone use anything but chrom-moly for gun barrels?".
Then we have the price thing. How many here would pay $400+ for a barrel? Far easier to make than a cut rifled 44" swamped octagonal barrel.
Dan
-
Fred - the reason for the discussion is because I sincerely would like to see some test data of differing metals and I'm hoping some metallurgists or others with actual, documentable data maybe venture out of the weeds. Perhaps the data does not exist - I have no idea.
Jerry - I agree that using something like 4140 or 4150 would most likely increase the price but honestly I do not see how it would increase it to the degree that you've speculated. It's not as though those materials are rare, or inordinately expensive. I anticipate pushing the length out to the 40" range or so would of course increase pricing but frankly I don't see why it would initiate a huge pricing increase if a barrel maker already set up to make long muzzleloading barrels simply changed material and was using it 'white' i.e. not blued or parkerized or QPQ etc.
I also do not think that a barrel being double the price over typical - $200 to $300 range being typical - would be something that would be a big deal to a professional gun builder. A hobbyist, perhaps, but I would think anyone making a bunch of these on a yearly basis, or making them for a high $$$ audience, would find the price difference to be anything other than a blip on the radar. What is a $2-300 difference in the price of a $5K+ (in some cases +++) gun?
-
I'm not trying to be excessively argumentative nor am I trying to instigate WWIII. I'm simply curious and looking for genuine, scientific information. Arbitrary or anecdotal evidence obviously supports the use of 12L14 for barrels - heck, there are enough of them out there and we've all been using them for decades. But it only takes ONE liability situation to wipe out everything any of us has built and I don't see how the use of a barrel not certified as gun barrel steel could ever be defended, especially given the fact that we all know it's not certified for gun usage, blackpowder or not.
-
I put together and posted the below several years ago, and I am simply re-posting it here today. I still believe what I wrote several years ago. I have Mitch Yates building me a rifle right now and I have him using a GM barrel manly because of the type of steel the barrel is made from.
Some folks are simply not open to any information on this topic that is not the same as their opinion, and if you are one of those, please don’t read any farther, it is not my intent to get you all worked up. If you have an open mind and are willing to looking at some information I offer the following.
Let me first state that I am not a metallurgist nor am I an engineer. I do however have 30 years of professional experience in reviewing and evaluation of manufacturer’s of cargo tanks and other metal containers constructed of various metals for use in hazardous materials service. I am also trained in ASME boiler and pressure vessel code section VIII for construction of these vessels.
I also do not consider myself as an expert in this area. I have a working knowledge of metals and steel, but nothing close to being an expert. I do work with metallurgist on occasion and over the years have posed this question to them and also to a metallurgist that worked for a major steel mill. Each of them, without hesitation in short said no way would they ever use 12L14 for a ML barrel.
Some of the information that follows comes from the ‘Metals Handbook” I am not sure why they call it a handbook. It is one of those really big books and is 1,300 pages. I think it must weight 10 lbs. This book is a standard in the metal world and is recognized as one of the best “go to” books on metals of all types.
Measures of machinablility has been defined as a “complex property of a materials that controls the facility with which it can be cut to the size, shape and surface finish required commercially.” 1112 steel is rated at 100%. All other steels are rated above or below this 100% level, the majority falling considerably below. 12L14 is rated at 190%. Its machinability is a direct result of a fine dispersion of lead particles throughout the alloy.
12L14 is considered to be one of the fastest machining bar products produced today.
It is used to maximum advantage for parts where considerable machining is required such as bushings, inserts, couplings and hydraulic hose fittings. With good ductility, these grades are suitable for parts involving bending, crimping or riveting
12L14 is not used for gun barrels due to its strength and toughness, it is used because it is extremely easy to machine and cut the rifling in.
1137 was used by Green Mountain for ML barrels. 1137 is a known gun barrel steel and is considered a low cost, easy machinability and is rated at 160%. Some of the property numbers for 1137 are fairly similar to 12L14, but the overall characteristics are a bit different. My Metals Handbook even addresses the use of this steel for gun barrels.
4140 is/was used by Green Mountain for their bp cartridge barrels
This is one of the chromium, molybdenum, manganese low alloy steels noted for toughness, good torsional strength and good fatigue strength
As with all the low alloy steels forming may be done by conventional methods with the alloy in the annealed condition. These alloys have good ductility, but are tougher than plain carbon steel and thus usually require more force, or pressure, for forming.
Characterized by high strength and good impact properties with good machinability, but low weldability.
The following are properties for some of the common barrel steel used.
12L14
Tensile strength 78,300 PSI, Yield strength 60,200 PSI
1137
Tensile strength 108,000 PSI, Yield strength 76,100 PSI
1144
Tensile strength 108,000 PSI, Yield strength 89,900 PSI
4140
Tensile strength 148,000 PSI, Yield strength 95,000 PSI
The above numbers show what the tensile and yield strength for the 4 types of steels listed. The tensile strength gives us some idea on how tough the steel is. However, the standard for determining toughness is the Charpy V-notch test.
Notch toughness is the ability or capacity of a metal to yield plastically under high localized stress, such as might occur at the root of a notch. Notches may be inherent in design or may be the accidental result of tool marks, scratches, voids, minute surface cracks left by grinding, pits etc.
Notch toughness is influenced by the chemical composition and physical properties of the steel. Temperature can have a big impact (no pun intended) on failure of the Charpy V-notch test. As temperature decrease, the amount of energy the piece of steel is able to absorb decreases. This is called transition temperature. Once a piece of steel is at or beyond its transition temperature the toughness decreases rapidly and the ability for it to yield plastically and not fail is greatly decreased.
I am not 100% sure, but it is my understanding that 12L14 has a transition temperature around 70 degrees F. I have never worked professionally with 12L14 steel and have never witnessed or reviewed data for Charpy V-notch testing of it. If anyone has data that supports a different opinion of 12L14 for Charpy V-notch testing I would be interested in that.
I have 3 barrels made by Mark DeHaas and they are 1144. 1144 is not a great or even a good gun barrel steel as the physical properties are concerned. It is better than 12L14, but not by a large degree. These barrels are great for accuracy, simply wonderful and I love them. I can not say enough good things about Mark and his barrels. Several years ago he switched to using 12L14, when I asked him why, he stated for numerous reasons, cost, availability, easy of machining and because that is what many others are using.
If 12L14 was the only choice I had, or the best steel available it would make the decision much easier. However that is not the case in today’s world. As a consumer I can buy barrels from a few makers that are using steels that are recognized by metallurgist and engineers as an appropriate material for a gun barrel.
Do barrels made of 12L14 fail every day? Of coarse not. Have some failed? Of course. Might the failure be as the direct result of something the owner/shooter did that was not intended? Certainly. You ever shoot your ramrod? Not get a ball or bullet on the powder and leave a space? Double load your rifle?
Barrels made from steel that is recognized as good enough for a gun barrel can fail as well, however due to the physical qualities of the steel they have a better safety margin. Just like the ASME tanks that have a safety factor of 4 built into them. They are well built but unfortunately there are still failures.
I have several old shotguns that are ML and bp cartridge with damascus barrels, and I shoot them. The barrels on these guns are certainly not up to the standards for some of the more modern steels that we have available today. I realize that there is a certain risk associated with shooting these old girls. Back in the day that these barrels were made there were different quality as well as it comes to barrels. It is generally known that barrels that are not English barrels may cause one to have some concerns for quality. Belgium barrels are certainly not noted as being the standard of excellence. That does not mean that all barrels made in Belgium are bad barrels, and all English barrels are good. It is my understanding that my Parker 10 ga. hammer gun has Belgium barrels. Apparently that is where the Parker Company contracted to have their barrels made, and they are considered to be of high quality. This is why I try to only buy and use 100 – 150 year old guns from makers with known quality parts, including their barrels. In Greener’s book “The Gun” there is a fairly good section on barrels and construction of them.
Let me be clear, I have never stated that a 12L14 barrel will fail or is likely to fail. What I have stated and will state that 12L14 is not the best readily available steel to be used as barrel material, and if given a choice, I would not knowing own one. There are exceptions of course. If I had a 12L14 barrel in .32 cal. that was a 1” barrel I would certainly consider that over the same barrel in .54 cal. with a thinner wall thickness.
If you have the choice, why would you pick a barrel that is made from steel that is not recognized by any metallurgist as steel that is appropriate for a barrel? When it came time to buy the barrels for the guns I make I have been buying barrels from makers that use steel that is recognized by the steel industry has being barrel quality. Not because they are more accurate, simply because they are made from steel that is better suited for this purpose. Why would I knowingly use questionable parts for guns I am going to be giving my kids?
If you made it this far and you are still sure I am biggest idiot in the world and violently disagree with what I have stated above if you want to send me personal emails in that regard, go ahead. Most of them are quite humorous.
Like I tell my kids, life is full of decisions’, choose wisely.
fleener
-
It is reported that Ed Rayl uses 8620 steel for barrels. I would never call 8620 a modern rifle barrel steel. 8620 annealed has a tensile strength of 76900psi and a yield strength of 55800psi. These specs are both lower than the specs of 12L14. 12L14 has a tensile strength of 78300 psi and a yield strength of 60200psi
These are not the only things to be considered but they are the main ones. Although 8620 will harden it will not very much because the carbon content is only .2 om average. That is a very mild steel.
It is used by some gun makers for barrels of sharps and other single shot rifles. these rifles are intended for use with black powder or very mild forms of modern powder such as 5744. A low pressure smokeless powder. 8620 is primarily used for parts that will be case hardened.
A real modern rifle barrel steel would be 4140 or 4150 heat treated. Try buying a 42" swamped barrel made of 4140 or 4150.
Any metallurgist will tell you that the tensile strength of a brittle steel like 12L14 when used as a gun barrel is meaningless.
I don't know enough about 8620 but its similar in some ways to 4140 but has less carbon and a couple of additions. Dan
-
Jim McLemore did make ml barrels from 4140 or 50 if I remember correctly. He also made gain twist barrels. Can't find anything about him now, sadly.
My understanding is he had to slow or halt production due to family health issues.
Just from filing, 1137 is quite a bit harder than 12l14. Working on 2 1 1/8 bbl for chunk gun, the 12l14 was a breeze to fit breech plug, file dovetails, etc., whereas the 1137 one took much longer.
-
Not a metallurgist, but I am not sure that fatigue is a problem in iron or steel barrels that are stress relieved. There is little bending or deformation of rifle barrels. In most material fatigue studies such as on bicycle frames, the steel or other fabricated object is subjected to cyclic stress to simulate use, which typically involves "springing" the object in the same directions and with forces generated during actual use. Bicycle frames may be subjected to simulation of use of 20 years, for example. Then typically the fabricated object undergoes destructive testing to see how much of the original capacity to resist failure was lost in use.
I do not know how you simulate 100,000 rounds fired in a muzzleloading rifle barrel without actually firing it 100,000 times.
Many serious target shooters report having shot their barrels 20,000 times and some report 50,000 times.
Aircraft fuselages are exposed to fatigue by the constant cycle of pressurization and depressurization. A barrel is similar in that it is pressurized and depressurized. They destructively test aircraft fuselages. If they do that, you can destructively test a gun barrel by pressurizing and depressurizing it hydraulically. Of course, that would cost a lot of money. I don't know who would pay for that.
Perhaps, the cost of the liability isn't worth the expenditure to find out. Otherwise, the insurance companies would probably destructively test gun barrels the way they test cars. The companies that insure us, certainly know the liability costs. They are underwriting us based on those costs. Maybe that should tell us something?
-
I have noticed how proponents usually delineate between muzzle loading gun barrel steel and smokeless gun barrel steel while opponents group them all in one category referring to acceptable gun barrel steel, requiring black powder barrels to the same qualities in a steel that high pressure modern smokeless demand.
-
I was looking at the Traditions website the other day and one of their flintlock rifles called the PA Pellet rifle is now being offered with a 1/28 twist chrome moly barrel 26" long. It's the first flint rifle I have ever seen offered with a chrome moly barrel.
The best shooting barrels I have owned have been Green Mountain but I am sure it's not the 1137 steel that is making the difference.
-
I'd have to echo that to some extent; those GM swamped barrels were kick-ares barrels, although having to breech them has always been a pain in the... well, you know, I already mentioned it once in the same sentence.
-
GM swamped barrels were kick-ares barrels,
I agree. I have a .54 cal in an English sporting rifle, perc. And the rifle that Mitch is making me is the same barrel.
fleener
-
Shiloh was making heavy barrels of 1144 at one time for at least one lot (IIRC 1144 designed for shafting and I'm told is very susceptible to breaking at a cut that is not well radiused). The heavy blanks had to the turned at the muzzle end about 4" to 1 1/4" to fit the gun drill. All was well and good until the blanks were button rifled. Then a significant number 15-20% split from where the rebate started to the "muzzle" . What fun. This is what started my quest to get a metallurgist involved. I would point out that 4140 was used for the same application with no splitting.... Funny how that works.... But there was a lot of bitching by the lathe guy because it was so tough to turn compared to 1144. Shiloh only used 4140-50 for barrels so far as i know and has for years now.
The prime reason hobby home barrel makers use steels that are NOT gun barrel quality (or better) is its a lot harder to get. It must be ordered from the mill in a furnace melt quantity. So ordering 50 or 100 tons of steel is not something a ML maker is going to do. Many of the makers of CF barrels have to pool orders to get up to the tonnage needed. Mill run steel is made all the time and made to FAR lower specifications.
Ductility is another term we have to be careful of. Steel may be ductile in one application and brittle in another, like when internally shock loaded like gun barrels are. No cold rolled steel or a steel loaded with lead, phosphorus or sulfur is going to be ductile when used as a gun barrel. Thus barrels intended to be used for gun barrels, designed for it if you will, are hot rolled, have no free machining additives and are more carefully made starting with the cleanliness of the furnace (I have read) to assuring the alloy to checking the resulting bars for flaws.
Dan
-
The thing in all of this is that published data on the strength of a particular steel alloy becomes almost meaningless in a ml gun barrel in the field. With a normal charge and a normal firing the stresses applied to the steel are a lot different than those applied with a projectile short-started in the bore or a loading where the projectile is "materially" removed from the powder charge. In this situations we get into explosive loading of the metal at stress application rates far in excessive of the stress rates used in a laboratory testing of the steel.
Back in the early 1960s I ran an Instron tensile testing machine in the lab where we checked PVC compounds used for electrical wire insulation. A particular lot would be tested at a rate of 12 inches per minute in the test and another set at 20 inches a minute. Looking at the difference in tensile strength and elongation at the two different speeds. Then another set after the samples had been allowed to age for 24 hours. As I was moving to another lab they purchased a stress/strain gauge to clip on the samples to get some other data on the behavior of the PVC compounds.
The factory ml rifles I looked at had design flaws that acted to concentrate stress in particular areas of the barrel. The amount of metal at the bottom of under rib screw holes scared me at times. On the patent breech barrels the rear face of the barrel gets rather thin with the threading. Normal loadings no problem. I did learn to change the length of my ball starters. Almost all of those I bought out of the gun shop would park the ball almost directly over the hole for the first under rib screw back from the muzzle. In at least two blown up barrels I looked at where the ball had been sitting over an under rib screw hole the hole acted as the starting point where the splits in the barrel that then migrated front and back.
You don't hear much about burst ml barrels these days. Nobody will publish anything if there are accidents. But when you go back to the late 1970s into the mid-1980s there were a host of them.
-
...Any time you think something is simple you just don't know much about it...
May I quote you on this? That's the acorn of the Oak. 8)
-
Eric Kettenburg you, or anyone else, are quite welcome to a pdf of that 3-part services in Muzzle Blasts, Oct-Nov-Dec 1985.
Just send me an email address. Mine can be found on this site.
-
I have noticed how proponents usually delineate between muzzle loading gun barrel steel and smokeless gun barrel steel while opponents group them all in one category referring to acceptable gun barrel steel, requiring black powder barrels to the same qualities in a steel that high pressure modern smokeless demand.
The results of a burst barrel very often cause serious human injury.
People also like to pretend that low grade steel barrels don't fail in MLs. This has been repeatedly proven to be false and people have been maimed. But its simply not discussed very often. You certainly will not find it in the gun press it might hurt advertising revenue. And after all it MUST be the loaders fault right? A barrel made of a modern alloy and grade of gun barrel steel is virtually impossible to burst with BP unless VERY thin. It may BULGE but its virtually impossible to break one with BP, the pressure levels and the burn rates are too slow. Short started projectiles will not cause brittle failure either.
I have accidentally shot a load that would curl people's hair through a 50 "B" contour GM and it suffered no damage at all.
It matters not at all if the barrel fails at 50000 psi or 16000 psi the potential to maim a human is still very high. Since a cheap steel in a ML is MORE LIKELY to fail at 16000 that the proper steel in a CF rifle at 50000 maybe we need to think about the consequences a little more.
Dan
-
Has anyone with a metallurgical background conducted a study, or is aware of a study, which examines what may be happening with a barrel of such material over time and use? Not speculation; any kind of study which has really scientifically looked at the effect of repetitive pressure and 'typical' shooting use upon the structure of the steel? I would be interested to know this.
Or you might try contacting these guys
http://closefocusresearch.com/close-focus-research-ballistic-testing-services (http://closefocusresearch.com/close-focus-research-ballistic-testing-services)
As to the question of liability-----ins. is cheap for the little guy and I would hope that a one man barrel shop would at least have a million dollar liability policy.
As far as cost----I believe the raw material is the least expensive part of the equation. In my mind it would be the tooling to gear up for manufacturing a barrel made of one of the currently accepted barrel steels. These "one man" barrel shops just don't produce enough product to justify it. Heck GM, one of the largest barrel manufactures in the U.S. , got out of the business for lack of demand. And if I recall Rice senior told me he only got into the business because used barrel making equipment was available at the time and he could sell his lock business to the guys that are now L&R. I believe he also had the foresight to realize that Getz barrels were going thru some changes.
Finally There's the saying "If it ain't broke it don't need fixin".
Steve
-
I think their would be a majority who would agree that the ideal barrel would be made of 4140 or 4150 for muzzle loaders but the fact is it won't ever happen on any large scale. If their was a market for them they would be for sale. There are a few people who will pay whatever the price for what they want as long as they can sell the gun. One gun I worked on had a barrel that cost $35,000.00 after it was engraved. I paid for a lot of barrels that cost more than $1000.00 and a couple that were over $2000.00
However the builders that build those kind of guns are few and far between. A 20" AR 15 barrel from Brownell cost $374.00. Double the length, make it octagon and swamped and make the rifling hand cut and you can at least triple the price. Put that up for sale against the 12L14 at $250.00 and the maker is dead in the water before he even starts. Do modern gun barrels blow up? YEP sure do.
If any body wants a 4140 muzzle loading barrel Somebody will make you one for a fee.
-
If any body wants a 4140 muzzle loading barrel Somebody will make you one for a fee.
I agree, and if you order 100 of them you may get the cost down to $374.00. I can buy an FN hammer forges m-4 barrel for $255 but then again FN just won the latest contract foe the m4A1 at $77,000 million dollars.
Steve
-
There is a person on this forum who knows a great deal about this sort of thing. Dave Crisalli is a rocket engineer and was an ordinance officer in the navy and a graduate of Annapolis. As far as tests go I doubt if he has ever tested a 4140 barrel with black powder. But the navel guns used black powder.
-
The reason to use the free machining steel is so it cuts easy with the hook or scrape rifling head? Sounds logical, leaded steel machines beautifully. OK, but a button barrel can be made cheap with chrome moly steel. But, ML folks mostly want deep rifling. On the other hand there are lots of folks who like TC's with shallow rifling. I have used 45-70 center fire blanks to make muzzle loaders. They were cheap button barrels. They shoot really well with patched balls, maxis, and sabots. Yes, a 42" swamped barrel would a different animal. For shorter round and octagon barrels they have worked very well for me. I have not found extra deep rifling to be an advantage. In fact deep rounded grooves have been more problematic to make shoot well, for me. So, that is an option for somebody who feels better by not shooting a leaded steel barrel. Just use a CF blank.
-
A lot of sound info on modern bbl steels has been posted and also on 12L14 which many don't consider to be a bbl steel even for MLing pressures. . But what about the forge welded skelp bbls of yesteryears and then a little later on , steels or wrought iron used for MLing bbls?
Rice bbls are made from 12L14 leaded steel and if one were to choose an "A" weight swamped bbl in the maximum caliber stated in Rice's specs and build a LR around it and then put in the sharp cornered dovetails for the bbl lugs and sights of which some new builder might make too deep....what then? Are these bbls likely to "blow up"?
Only Rice bbls or other bbl makers using 12L14 steel have info on the failure rates of their bbls through the years and are probably hesitant to offer this info due to hurting their business....but, maybe not depending on their info....which could be good or bad. They probably don't even like discussions such as this because it might harm their business, but the failure rate info surely would be interesting....whether good or bad.....Fred
-
So far, no new data.
I am curious about goals. The topic was started as asking for data, but there is no new data forthcoming and the discussion seems to be goal-oriented, so I will dig on on that aspect.
The unstated goal of some posting in the topic seems to be this: to have gun barrel steel, high quality, traditionally shaped, accurate muzzleloading barrels available in many shapes and forms, at a price less than double that of current leaded steel barrels.
The reasons behind this goal seem to be 2:
1) Actual desire for greater safety margin.
2) Reduced liability for professional builders in the situation where a gun barrel fails.
1) is laudable, but until somebody runs side by side tests showing that a 4140 barrel short started with the ball at the dovetail notch will not fail or will fail in a safer manner than leaded steel barrels, it is a supposition that the 4140 barrels are safer. We all have seen center fire guns with banana or worse failure from a minor mud plug that occurred when somebody slipped and fell, and did not realize some mud got up the muzzle. I agree, on paper, 4140 would be less likely to harm someone with the same unreasonable stress. But this is why people do experiments: so they have data to back up their well reasoned hypothesis. As a scientist, theoretical scenarios are just that to me.
2) sounds practical but it seems to me that a family of someone who got injured or killed by doing something dangerous (but unintentional) with their muzzleloader, is going to sue the builder if they are the lawsuit type. Those bringing a lawsuit should know the gunmaker has no assets worth having, but will have to cast a broad net including the builder, barrel supplier, and barrel manufacturer. All those people named in the suit will have to get legal representation whether they used 4140 or some other accepted "gun barrel steel" (meaning accepted centerfire gun barrel steel) or something not accepted for centerfire gun barrels. You can decide whether $20,000 or $100,000 later in lawyer fees, that winning the lawsuit because you used 4140 was a victory.
-
Jim McLemore did make ml barrels from 4140 or 50 if I remember correctly. He also made gain twist barrels. Can't find anything about him now, sadly.
My understanding is he had to slow or halt production due to family health issues.
Just from filing, 1137 is quite a bit harder than 12l14. Working on 2 1 1/8 bbl for chunk gun, the 12l14 was a breeze to fit breech plug, file dovetails, etc., whereas the 1137 one took much longer.
I have been in contact with Jim McLemore several times in the last week and we discussed a Rigby barrel
project. His wife of many years was very ill and he was not able to work for the duration of her illness but
it seems he is again interested. He has stated more than once that he will NOT make ANY barrel from steels that
are not mill certified for gun barrels. I have made the remark that any steel that will stand the hammering of a'full auto gun will certainly hold up to the gentle tickle of a muzzle loader.
When he bought Bill Large's shop equipment a few years ago he found some strips of 1075 spring steel and day before yesterday
I got them in the mail. I will clean these up and maybe use them.
Jim's barrels are not cheap but then there is not ONE person on this forum that can tell me why they should be.
Call him at 1-219-552-4050 if you are interested in his ideas of quality control.
Bob Roller
-
" But what about the forge welded skelp bbls of yesteryears and then a little later on , steels or wrought iron used for MLing bbls? "
They used what they had. I would not knowingly shoot a barrel forge welded out of old horse shoe nails. Such barrels forged welded out of scrap can work just fine though.
What causes failures is unpredictable. Sam Fadala made some test barrels out of electrical conduit and breech them in soup cans of cement. They held a respictable amount of powder a patched ball without damage. Seating off the powder took them out in one shot.
The mass produced barrel I posted about a while back has a gap in front of the plug and the wall thickness in the area was only a little thicker than electrical conduit. It is amazing to me that those barrels did not fail in mass. Getting worked up over alloys may be over analyzing?
Brass barrels were/are sometimes used. How do they compare to 12L16?.
-
Rich that does sum it up pretty well. I was hoping there exists somewhere some documentation, and some good information has been posted. BTW Mr. Kelly, I will send along a message as I'd like to take you up on that offer of the pdf file; I suspect it will be very interesting!
Rich: one thing I would take a bit of issue with is "Those bringing a lawsuit should know the gunmaker has no assets worth having..." I think that's casting a bit too general of a net!
Snapper - good information there, thanks.
-
" But what about the forge welded skelp bbls of yesteryears and then a little later on , steels or wrought iron used for MLing bbls? "
They used what they had. I would not knowingly shoot a barrel forge welded out of old horse shoe nails. Such barrels forged welded out of scrap can work just fine though.
History repeats itself.
The original wrought iron barrels were a mixed bag.
How good a particular barrel was depended on where the iron ore came from and how it was smelted in the iron furnace. Then it went through at least two reheats and hammers in another forge to remove impurities. Then when the skelp was hammer forged into a barrel it depended on how it was hammered. By hand or a trip hammer.
Magnatite ore gave the best barrels. That ore here in Berks County included a bit of manganese. Most of which was removed during the ore smelting process but small amounts remained in the pig iron. Hematite ore gave an iron that included a lot of slag inclusions in the finished skelp. Barrels made here in Reading ended up on Hawken guns in St. Louis while there was an iron mine and furnace only about 80 miles from St. Louis. But that mine was worked with a low grade hematite iron ore. Then there was the scandal at Harpers Ferry when a manager quit buying barrel blanks out of Lancaster County, PA and bought a bunch from Bedford County, PA. A greater percentage of which failed proof testing after being made up into breeched barrels.
-
If any body wants a 4140 muzzle loading barrel Somebody will make you one for a fee.
Just to set the record straight, I know for a fact that at least 3 of the popular barrel makers have made barrels from 4140. Maybe others have as well. We use them for building long range bullet guns. Previously, Ernie at Badger barrels had the profiles for them, but that supply ended when he sold the company. In the interim, we used Green Mountain's black powder cartridge barrels, but the lacked the proper profile.
When Rod England started producing the Alex Henry again, he had a run of 10 properly profiled barrels produced from 4140. I bought the first two from him. Contrary to what has been stated, they were priced at only $450 each, which is comparable to what Badger Barrels used to cost.
However, to have a single custom barrel in a special profile made would cost a great deal more. I searched all over for someone who would make me a couple of barrels with Rigby flats machined in. Many would make me a barrel blank, but wouldn't machine them in the Rigby profile.
-
I blew a Douglas barrel years ago. Flint 1" X .50. Loaded it with 80gr 2ff then rammed the ball home then must have dumped 80grg 2ff again then short started the ball only. Blew her all to $#*!. The short started ball was still in the barrel, blew at the breech, never found the top flat, the stock was completely shattered.I got a singed eye brow and a new respect for paying attention to what you're doing when you're loading. :o I don't think it probably mattered much what the barrel was made of. Stupid is what stupid does.
I also blew out a muzzle on a rfile barrel. Had a .54 with 80 gr powder. Got distracted by someone talking, started another ball, and never rammed it home. When the gun fired, it made the strangest sound. Muzzle was blown out just like in the cartoons, but it wasn't funny. No one got hurt, which was a miracle.
It doesn't matter what the steel in the barrel is if you're going to load improperly.
-
Just to set the record straight, I know for a fact that at least 3 of the popular barrel makers have made barrels from 4140.
Are any of them making 42"-46" tapered and flared octagon barrels? That is where the lack of options seems to be.
-
Re: wrought iron barrels. When the 1819 Hall rifle, patented 1811 (flintlock breechloader) was submitted for US Army trials the proof loads were two 52-cal roundballs over 200-grains of powdah and one roundball over 327-grains of powdah. All barrels tested survived with no defects noted. That's a darn big charge for wrought iron!
Maybe it was more ductile? Sounds like some are alleging that some modern MZL steels can be brittle.
-
Of the thousands of muzzle loading barrels made in the last 50 years from 12L14, what is the percentage of them that failed? Just guessing here, maybe a fraction of 1%? I would also guess that only a small percentage of those that did fail, failed from a material defect. The larger portion was operator error. The number of failures can't be very high as we would be hearing about it. With our culture that is antigun and all to anxious the sue over the least little problem, we would be seeing adverts on TV and in our magazines from law firms. Something like, If you have fired a muzzleloader recently with a, you add the name, barrel and felt any discomfort, we would like to help you get the big settlement you deserve. While 12L14 may not be the ideal barrel steel, it is a far cry better than the cast iron that was used for many years for cannon barrels. I believe it is probably safer to fire our guns with 12L14 barrels than it is to drive to work in the morning. Maybe we all should just stay home and shoot something.
Mark
-
Maybe it was more ductile? Sounds like some are alleging that some modern MZL steels can be brittle.
Basically, yes. From what I gather reading online, talking to a number of different barrel-makers, and reading James Kelly's articles, there are basically three issues at play with 12L14:
1) Brittleness. Brittleness is actually a desireable trait in steel, at times, because when it is machined the chips break away from the piece being worked easily. 12L14 is easy to machine precisely because it is brittle, whereas 4140 is "gummy" (to quote a barrelmaker I talked to recently) which I interpret to mean that when machining 4140 the chips tend to bend and cling to the piece. Unfortunately the very properties that make 12L14 easy to machine reduce its utility as a barrel material.
2) Cold drawing. I don't know if modern 12L14 barrels are made from hot-rolled-cold drawn stock. Cold drawing steel to get a smooth finish does sometimes leave microscopic cracks in the surface of a piece of steel, and has been a problem in the past - this was the big issue with Douglas barrels back in the day. Don't know if that is a problem today.
One of my big takeways from Kelly's articles is that these cracks don't always cause immediate failure - a fissure can grow over time and the repeated shock of firing until the barrel fails under quite ordinary loads. He has details of several such failures.
3) Gunbarrel rating from the foundry. Material intended for gun barrels gets special treatment at the foundry to ensure that it is as close to specs as possible and that it is consistent throughout the batch. Otherwise, it is possible to the alloying elements may end up in clusters, and a barrel made from a bar containing a cluster may be weaker than its nominal rating. Luck of the draw...
Knowledgable people, feel free to correct me.
-
If 4140 muzzle loading barrels were mass produced how many more people do you think would soon assume they were safe to shoot smokeless powder in??
-
Get a load of this
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi0vvC4tJbSAhUGMSYKHd0qCwoQFgg1MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ca6.uscourts.gov%2Fopinions.pdf%2F13a0744n-06.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH2KucTBI6ammjJRdzEF8GWATiacg&sig2=sBULNh31BOlCmvRB8beu5g
Interesting lawsuite with regards to a Savage made muzzleloader
-
interesting thread,I done have anything of substance to add.I still building my first rifle.Its a green mountain barrel for what that's worth. All I can do is cut my dovetails correctly and trust the steel.I filed the bases of the lugs down to the same thickness as the copper base on the front site,pretty thin.This leaves plenty of meat in the barrel,again all you can do is trust the steel.Everyday you have faith somebody else did their part,hope the door don't fall off the hinges,railing holds up going down the steps.Your truck don't come apart going down the road, ect.ect.You start thinking about this stuff every time you pull the trigger, heck get outa bed in a the morning, still find these types of disscusions interesting and in formative
-
If 4140 muzzle loading barrels were mass produced how many more people do you think would soon assume they were safe to shoot smokeless powder in??
Isn't that the sort of thing that happened to Savage? They used some form of Stainless in some of their ML's, and now they don't.
-
If 4140 muzzle loading barrels were mass produced how many more people do you think would soon assume they were safe to shoot smokeless powder in??
Isn't that the sort of thing that happened to Savage? They used some form of Stainless in some of their ML's, and now they don't.
According to the court document linked above, the stainless barrels were intended to shoot both black and smokeless powder.
-
If 4140 muzzle loading barrels were mass produced how many more people do you think would soon assume they were safe to shoot smokeless powder in??
Isn't that the sort of thing that happened to Savage? They used some form of Stainless in some of their ML's, and now they don't.
According to the court document linked above, the stainless barrels were intended to shoot both black and smokeless powder.
Yes, and they failed too many times to keep in production. I didn't see any powder discussion, but we all know that rates of nitro are all over the place for specific applications. (That was my first personal response to hearing about SS ML using nitro--but the kids don't even understand nitro/black differences how in hades will they understand Bullseye vs. 4198! I never wanted any part of that mess.)
Expert witness testimony says a hole was .007 too deep and that there was too much sulfur added to the stainless to improve machinability. It was "out of spec." in both cases.
I only glanced at the case linked above. A full review would require reading each case cited by that case and I don't do that.
-
If any body wants a 4140 muzzle loading barrel Somebody will make you one for a fee.
Just to set the record straight, I know for a fact that at least 3 of the popular barrel makers have made barrels from 4140. Maybe others have as well. We use them for building long range bullet guns. Previously, Ernie at Badger barrels had the profiles for them, but that supply ended when he sold the company. In the interim, we used Green Mountain's black powder cartridge barrels, but the lacked the proper profile.
When Rod England started producing the Alex Henry again, he had a run of 10 properly profiled barrels produced from 4140. I bought the first two from him. Contrary to what has been stated, they were priced at only $450 each, which is comparable to what Badger Barrels used to cost.
However, to have a single custom barrel in a special profile made would cost a great deal more. I searched all over for someone who would make me a couple of barrels with Rigby flats machined in. Many would make me a barrel blank, but wouldn't machine them in the Rigby profile.
These Alex Henry-Rigby-Gibbs types of rifle were never intended for the low end of the market and
I got $300 for the locks and a smaller version copied from a Whitworth boy's rifle was $400.
Sights are also factored into these rifles and they aren't cheap. I have made a few tang sights for them
and that is as labor intensive as a lock.
Bob Roller
-
Fleener's post concerning tensil strength, PSI and what all is interesting and a good starting point. Okay, we have info on pressures.....how does that translate in laymens terms with regards to black powder loads? In other words, how much pressure is produced by a load of 75 grains of 2f under a patched 490 roundball (just using this as an example).
Seeing that we as shooters load each shot and though we try our best for consistancy, how much in actuality are we consistant? Let me put this way: if any of us hand load for those other known devices called guns that consume a brass tube that hold both powder and projectile (cartridges) we should be consistant, and to maintain the consistancy we use powder measures that should throw the same amount of powder for each shell loaded. To confirm this we can use a scale every 20 rounds or so to make sure we are accurate. The bullet is seated at a known depth, always the same unless moved. There are also books and data printed to help us determine wht sort of loads we want to use. This data shows the starting measure of powder and the maximum amount one should use.
Now lets jump to black powder....guy at a range loads up his gun and shoots, loads again, continues to shoot. Think about how much powder actually is being dumped into the bore. Is it always the same? Does some of the powder spill off as he pours, does the wind skiff off a small amount, is there some spillage? Now the patch and ball. Any voids in the ball? Is the patch consistant? How many times have we seen the new guy who decides to shoot 90 grains of 3f under a patched 490 round ball, then decides he wants to really make that sucker to move and loads in up with 100 grains? Is the ball really seated? Is this safe?
I can relate to what Fleener writes about a fear of 12L14 barrels having capabilities of failure, but if that steel is as bad as stated and due to explode and fail, we should by shear numbers have a lot of people going to the emergancy room on a weekly basis after going to the shooting range...there would be a national crisis, it would be all over the news. But it's not. There should be catastrophies happening every weekend when thousands of people go out and shoot.
I think that some barrels will fail, it may be due to the barrel, it may be due to the operator. I wonder what the stats are for it....betting it's low. How long have 12L14 been used for barrels? The 60's, how about the 70's.....how many are out there? Gotta be more than 20....We should by rights and by numbers alone see a bunch of barrel failures, failures that should range into more than 20. Let's say that there are 20,000 12L14 barrels of an assortment of calibers and the failure rate is 1 percent.....200 failures? If you have a car with air bags they may go off with such a force that it can kill you....13 people (could be more, could be less) have died so far and there's a national investigation with recalls and all sorts of legal proceedings.
As I said before, we dabble in a hobby that can have some potential and deadly issues if we are uneducated, ill informed, loose our train of thought and take unkown risks. Same can be said for race car drivers, lion tamers, daredevils and a whole host of others that do what they enjoy doing. Even cooking, sewing and gardening can have bad results that can result in some sort of injury.
-
Just want to insert a note, I am pretty sure there are a LOT more than 20K 12L14 barrels out there, and this is just going by the serial # on the last Getz barrel I obtained. Then factor in Douglas, Paris, Rice, Colerain, and who knows who else is using 12L; it's got to be up in the six figures, without a doubt.
Actually now that I think about it, that is one heck of a lot of muzzleloading barrels!
-
Fleener's post concerning tensil strength, PSI and what all is interesting and a good starting point. Okay, we have info on pressures.....how does that translate in laymens terms with regards to black powder loads? In other words, how much pressure is produced by a load of 75 grains of 2f under a patched 490 roundball (just using this as an example).
80g FFg Goex behind a .49" ball was measured at 14,000 out of a clean bore, up to 22,000, according to a test cited by Mr. Kelly.
The issue with just looking at tensile strength is that while a piece of metal may be able to stand considerable tension exerted in one direction that is applied slowly and consistently, it may not be able to to handle the same force, or even much smaller forces, if suddenly applied and/or applied in a different direction. I think we are all aware of this phenomenon in other areas of life - a piece of string that can withstand a considerable amount of weight hung on it may snap if given a quick yank, etc., etc. Steel is much the same.
A lot of the question people are asking on this thread are answered, at least in part, in Mr. Kelly's articles. Given the very small percentage of 12L14 barrels that failed in use, I think that there is still room for honest disagreement, but I think that if folks will read them we are a lot more likely to reach some sort of useful conclusion, even if it is just to agree to disagree.
-
I preliminarily went through the articles (thank you Mr. Kelly!) and they are extremely well-written. And, more importantly, not speculative but backed with verifiable information.
I think the bottom line here is going to be that 12L and many other materials used (there were/are? still guys using seamless hydraulic tubing, or boring out naval brass rods etc) are *technically* not suitable for barrel steels, but practical application with blackpowder only seems to bear out the fact that something like 12L can be used, and will continue to be used. However, it is a bit of a roulette, even if the odds are heavily in the shooters' favor. That's how I interpret things thus far, anyway. Perhaps I'm being over-simplistic.
-
I have often stated that the tensile strength of 12L14 is 78,000 psi and the yield strength is 62,200 psi. Several times the reply has been that it is irrelevant. For our enlightenment why is it irrelevant for one type of steel and not for another type of steel??
Also how can it be said that if it takes 78,000 psi to pull a piece of steel into that it is brittle. Very few muzzle loading rifle pressures ever exceed 25,000 psi of chamber pressure. I am aware of hoop strength mathematics and I know how to figure chamber pressure and the application of it.
The fact has been established by time and trial that firing the average modern made muzzle loading barrel made of 12L14 steel loaded properly with black powder is at least as safe as modern aviation and a lot safer than going to the grocery store in your car.
If tensile strength specs. are irrelevant why do we have them at all??
-
This argument (barrel steels) has been going on for a long time. Some of you might remember the Buckskin Report magazine that was put out of business due to issues with barrel steel. I don't know if JC Kellys' report was used in that case in some way, but would be interesting to know.
One thing I do know, is that living in this anti gun area that I do, if any kind of gun barrel was blowing up, it would be all over the news!
And when you get right down to it, no steel is impervious to incorrect loading. Just touch off a case full of Bullseye in the ol' -06, and I guarantee you won't like the result!
John
-
Jerry-
Tensile strength is certainly relevant, but it’s only part of the picture. Consider three pieces of 1095 spring steel, one annealed, one tempered and one hardened. All have about the same tensile strength. As you well know, the hardened piece is extremely brittle, the annealed piece is quite ductile, and the tempered spring is intermediate. In the case of a gun barrel, a material must have a certain minimum tensile strength. Beyond that, other properties must also be considered.
I’ve spent some time looking for information that would address Eric’s original question. I have found basic tensile, stress/strain and fatigue information, but I find nothing at all on 12L14 tubes of any kind. I doubt this data exists. There is a good reason for this – 12L14 was designed to be easily machined, at the expense of some mechanical properties. It is used in applications where other properties, such as wear, chemical resistance, fatigue resistance or ultimate strength are not primary considerations. If someone wanted to design a pressure vessel (such as a gun barrel) they would look at other steels whose properties are more appropriate. In this case, machinability would be a secondary consideration.
About all that we can say now is that extensive empirical experiments have concussively shown the 12L14 is adequate for muzzleloader barrels. This includes normal loading, and the occasional short started or doubled loaded barrels. As we move away from normal loads, behavior of individual barrels becomes less predictable. The same is true of any gun barrel.
-
I'm surprised that 12L14 would be described as "brittle". I have read that very soft iron was desirable for rifle barrels, and I think 12L14 certainly falls in that realm. When in the process of upsetting dovetails , I've had encounters with other barrel materials that I found to be "brittle" for sure, but never 12L14 . I would consider it safe for use as intended. Rice actually lists loading information for their barrels [ very conservative IMO ] . At what point can you consider that a precedent has been set for "off list " accepted usage of this material ? With so many thousands in use, I think we are there.
-
I don't think of this topic as an argument. I try to learn all I can from any source even at my age. The simple topics become boring to me but topics like this are interesting. In my opinion anybody with a minimal amount of knowledge knows that mild steels are not ideal. But that is really not the object of Eric's original question. He never got an answer. But most of us learned something. Ideal is perfect. Perfect includes the perfect shooter. I'm going to keep studying this subject for a while.
-
Jerry
Here is Eric’s question:
Has anyone with a metallurgical background conducted a study, or is aware of a study, which examines what may be happening with a barrel of such material over time and use? Not speculation; any kind of study which has really scientifically looked at the effect of repetitive pressure and 'typical' shooting use upon the structure of the steel?
I believe he has got an answer, and the answer is no, none of us here are aware of such a study. It probably does not exist. Studies of this type are expensive. Big gun barrel manufacturers who can afford to do them don’t look at 12L14, and the small folks can’t afford the study. 12L14 is not used as a pressure vessel at all, at least as far as I can tell.
-
the small folks can’t afford the study
My son is a civil engineer. When he was at Tulane, while they still had an engineering program, they did materials testing in the lab there. His specialty is bridges, so that testing was relevant.
Perhaps, someone could find an engineering student who's also interested in muzzleloading to take on such a project as a masters or doctorate subject.
-
Eric, have you read the report of Don Getz when he and John Bivins did "blow up" tests (for lack of better terms) on barrels. I think it is posted on this forum.
-
Somewhere, it is posted, but I can't lay my hands on it. I remember that Don took a section [ 10 or 12 in ] of barrel and breached both ends after filling it with powder [black powder] . There was a touch hole in the centre of the barrel section which they lit via a fuse. The barrel held. I think the words were " I can't believe all that fire /pressure came out of that touch hole, but it did " or something like that.
-
I don't think of this topic as an argument. I try to learn all I can from any source even at my age. The simple topics become boring to me but topics like this are interesting. In my opinion anybody with a minimal amount of knowledge knows that mild steels are not ideal. But that is really not the object of Eric's original question. He never got an answer. But most of us learned something. Ideal is perfect. Perfect includes the perfect shooter. I'm going to keep studying this subject for a while.
Absolutely not an arguement in any way, but rather, by all means a very well balanced discussion. Lots of imput.
-
Original question from Eric:
Has anyone with a metallurgical background conducted a study, or is aware of a study, which examines what may be happening with a barrel of such material over time and use? Not speculation; any kind of study which has really scientifically looked at the effect of repetitive pressure and 'typical' shooting use upon the structure of the steel? I would be interested to know this.
My direct answer: Not likely.
Additional thoughts: I am a rocket propulsion engineer. I work with excellent material specialists and stress analysts. The hardware we design, build, and test is some of the most demanding on the planet....very hot.....very high pressure...and, as Dr. Werner Von Braun once said, "In the space business, a reliability of 99.999% means total disaster." Specifically in response to Eric, I am not sure how you would even design a representative experiment that would cover all of the variables (number of shots, rapidity of the cycle, clean bore, lightly rusted bore, overall aging between firing cycles.....) you get the picture. Not an easy (or inexpensive) test to design and do, and the interpretation of results would be open to even more speculative conversation.
That being said, anything mechanical can fail under certain or unknown circumstances, even if being used as designed. If being used beyond design limits (i.e. short started ball, shooting out your ram rod, etc.), all bets are off. For me the question is, "how likely is the failure of a 12L14 barrel under normal circumstances ?"
Some statistics about other things I do routinely that I think are relevant:
I have several steps around my house. From the CDC:
12,000 stair accidents result in death every year in the US and over 1,000,000 injuries ranging from minor to critical.
I am older now.....I go to the doctor a lot..........From the Journal of Patient Safety:
Somewhere north of 250,000 deaths a year are directly attributable to medical mistakes.
I still drive...and in Los Angeles no less !.....From the National Safety Council:
38,300 people were killed and 4.4 million injured on U.S. roads in 2015.
I have done a lot of what I will call "adventurous" things in my life...many years in the US Navy (floating around in salt water in a big iron box filled with explosives, gun powder, missiles, gun projectiles, 300,000 gallons of fuel, and 440 volt electrical systems), scuba diving, mountain climbing, small aircraft flying, handling high explosives, handling rocket propellants, etc., etc.
If a barrel made out of 12L14 frightens you, by all means don't shoot one.
Personally, I will keep shooting all of mine because I put being killed or injured by flying 12L14 fragments from one of my barrels right up there statistically with winning the Lottery or being hit by a meteor. I just can't worry about possibilities that remote...I would never walk down my front steps to get in the car and go to the doctor........:)
-
.I would never walk down my front steps to get in the car and go to the doctor...
Now that's just plain funny, especially coming from a for real "rocket scientist" ;D ;D ;D
-
.I would never walk down my front steps to get in the car and go to the doctor...
Now that's just plain funny, especially coming from a for real "rocket scientist" ;D ;D ;D
I guess after all it did take a rocket scientist to answer the question... ;)
-
.I would never walk down my front steps to get in the car and go to the doctor...
Now that's just plain funny, especially coming from a for real "rocket scientist" ;D ;D ;D
I guess after all it did take a rocket scientist to answer the question... ;)
Best response yet!
-
Eric, have you read the report of Don Getz when he and John Bivins did "blow up" tests (for lack of better terms) on barrels. I think it is posted on this forum.
"Testing" 12l14 is irrelevant since it possible to test a number of barrels and not find a bad one. As I stated the iron barrels used in trade guns were often riddled with flaws and did not necessarily fail. Better to look at the early TC Hawken "problems" where they got sued several times and had to use the "handloader" defense to escape and in one case falsely "proved" that smokeless powder was used (it was shown some time later that Goex blackpowder would give the same chemical test color but the plaintiffs lawyers did not do the test so...). What I consider to be the final word on this is this letter sent to John Baird when he was editor of the Buckskin Report and was published.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FBarrel%2520steel%2FLaSalle%2520Steel%2520letter001.jpg&hash=9e3aa1def36538a81a5185c9c5fcb270e695dce6)
There is more here. http://s72.photobucket.com/user/DPhariss/library/Barrel%20steel?sort=3&sc=1&multi=1&addtype=local&media=image&page=1 should work. I did not bother the scan in the discourse from Cunningham on the subject but it was the same thing you will find here so it would be redundant.
I would like people who have sent me reports to the PM on this sight back before it was revamped a few years back since ti foolishly did not download them them and they were lost in the upgrade.
As we might expect the 12l14 users of the time used the exact same arguments to "refute" the letter that are sued by 12L14 users today. Just remember that its possible to shoot tennis balls with a PVC pipe with BP if the charges are light and the people doing it stupid enough. Here is a question. If you were flying someplace in a light aircraft, Cessna 180 maybe, perhaps out over the AK Range where severe turbulence is common. Would you want the control cables made of aircraft grade, approved cables or something the cable maker specifically says not to use in that application? Just curious.
Dan
-
the small folks can’t afford the study
My son is a civil engineer. When he was at Tulane, while they still had an engineering program, they did materials testing in the lab there. His specialty is bridges, so that testing was relevant.
Perhaps, someone could find an engineering student who's also interested in muzzleloading to take on such a project as a masters or doctorate subject.
In terms of a study along the lines of what Eric is asking for, it would seem most relevant to seek out shooters that can document claims of having shot 10-20,000 rounds from a 12L14 barrel and offer to buy them back so that an engineering student can look at them. I'm sure that if a mounting a new barrel (of their choice) to their rifle was also offered in addition to buying back the "used" one, there would be takers interested in furthering the cause. Heck, I bet the Marsh Family from KY could even supply sample barrels. For as much shooting as they do and after years of dominating offhand matches at Friendship, I'm sure they have gone through plenty of 12L14 barrels.
Someone else here mentioned they didn't know how to simulate that many rounds fired through a new barrel. Using "real" barrels that have been heavily used for years would seem to give the most accurate representation of the affects of pressure over time.
-
Jerry
Here is Eric’s question:
Has anyone with a metallurgical background conducted a study, or is aware of a study, which examines what may be happening with a barrel of such material over time and use? Not speculation; any kind of study which has really scientifically looked at the effect of repetitive pressure and 'typical' shooting use upon the structure of the steel?
I believe he has got an answer, and the answer is no, none of us here are aware of such a study. It probably does not exist. Studies of this type are expensive. Big gun barrel manufacturers who can afford to do them don’t look at 12L14, and the small folks can’t afford the study. 12L14 is not used as a pressure vessel at all, at least as far as I can tell.
If looking at blown up MLs is too distressing I guess we could look at the Remington shotgun lawsuit over maimed shooters where a steel that was not initially brittle but was prone to embrittlement in use, 1140M, was used for shotgun barrels and over time the barrels failed in high use applications (trap shooters) and Remington not only had to pay out for some gruesome damages they had to pay everyone that owned a shotgun in the serial number range (why no recall I have no idea). This steel was plenty strong enough for the use. Shotguns with modern ammunition ARE subject to barrel flexing do to the fast powders used and the pressure level (which is significantly higher than BP would produce for the same velocity). So while the steel was strong enough and in the case of the burst shotguns stood up for thousands of rounds then eventually became brittle, work hardened and failed. Cold rolled steels are ALL work hardened intentionally from the mill the brittleness makes them easier to machine. Free machining cold rolled steels are not only brittle but they are riddled with inclusions of lubricating metals. This cannot be "fixed" by normalizing since the inclusions may get WORSE if this is done. I will say that the last Douglas barrels I got back in the day dis show signs of being annealed. I know of one of these that was shot with a significant overload several times and the fired with a stuck ball and only bulged. There is a photo of this barrel with 1/2 the bulge machined away on the photobucket page. Typically the 12l14 barrel will not bulge it breaks since the brittleness will not allow it to flex so I suspect that this barrel was one made after the Douglas failures of the late 1960s and I an some others think they annealed the bars before the drilling process possibly at the mill. I THINK they had them annealed because the last ones I used had a very hard oxide coating that would dull a file and was heck to remove. Don King told me he would "pickle" them to get it off.
People like to make excuses such as comparing shooting a barrel of a unsuitable alloy to the risk of falling on the stairs. My question of course would be would you willingly use a stair that was very poorly designed and the same design/materials had been known to fail unexpectedly either immediately after construction or after years of use and people were maimed or killed as a result? If we look at the NUMBER of uses of stairs every year (day?) vs the number of serious injuries I suspect the risk is very small. Probably a billion uses in the US every day if such a study could be done. I personally used stairs in my house at LEAST 10 or 14 times just yesterday. If we consider each STEP a "use" the numbers just in my state of about a million people go off the scale. I would also point out that in commercial buildings at least there is a code for stairs and their design and construction and materials are surely specified. Because faulty design/construction/materials have caused injuries. So, by and large the accidents on the stairs are invariably due to mistakes by the user not the design or construction of the stair. How about drunk drivers? Chances are every time you drive any distance you will meet a vehicle driven by someone who is impaired by drink or dope. Many are pretty good at it and can get away with it for years, especially if they have an "understanding" local sheriff's dept. I suspect only a small percentage actually kill or maim other people? Does this make it OK? If we want to make comparisons lets compare my mech infantry unit in VN. We used to do a lot of "recon by fire", we had contacts with NVA and shot a lot of ammo. I have no idea how much I used personally but at the time i figured between the Mq6, the M60 and the 50 cal it would make a pickup load. The 60 gunner across the road from me put out so much fire one day that the forend on his gun got hot so he used a flack vest as a "pot holder" and bonded the two together. In the time I was there we never had a barrel failure I know of with all that shooting and all that abuse. I did see a Browning locked up when the bolt forced the locking lug down so hard it deformed the receiver I suspected it was out of time slightly. Why no failures? Because the barrel steel was CAREFULLY designed and selected for that purpose. I have watched 50 cal Brownings shooting 100 round bursts in a quad mount. At night after the first 100 its possible to see the location of the bore in the barrel while standing to one side. They would typically shoot 2-4 such bursts of fire at a session just for interdiction or shooting over into North Vietnam just for fun. No failures. I have heard 50s cooking off and shooting on theitr own (its a closed bolt design) but the barrels never failed. Even shooting old ammo that produced cartridge case failures. But guns blowing up in the military is hard on morale so the military is careful about the materials used.
Btw has anyone here ever talked to a barrel maker who DIDN'T use 12L14 about it? Other than myself, probably not. Heh heh!
Dan
-
Somewhere, it is posted, but I can't lay my hands on it. I remember that Don took a section [ 10 or 12 in ] of barrel and breached both ends after filling it with powder [black powder] . There was a touch hole in the centre of the barrel section which they lit via a fuse. The barrel held. I think the words were " I can't believe all that fire /pressure came out of that touch hole, but it did " or something like that.
This was in an old DGW catalog and IIRC was in print for years. Things like this IGNORE the fact that the mill run steels and free machining steels have FLAWS and INCLUSIONS that are not present in every bar or every 12" section of any bar. Given that any part of any bar of 12L14 may not have any flaws and is used in testing and found to be sound does not mitigate the danger of the NEXT bar or piece of one.
BP in CLOSED BOMB testes (a strong closed vessel used in pressure testing) would produce 100000 psi. This is enough to burst many steels. BUT gun barrels are NOT closed bombs and a section of barrel with a vent is not either. So its obvious that the pressure developed was less than that needed to burst that particular piece of steel. There is a SOUND REASON that there are industry standards. Why the piping in oil refineries is ALL Nuclear grade steel (way over gun barrel quality). Why welders in the refinerys, pipeline industry, pile drivers unions and almost any place must be CERTIFIED. Why SPECIFIC alloys are specified. Why the military will instantly cancel barrel contracts if an inspector finds ONE PIECE of out of spec steel in the corner of the building. Why the Italians like Uberti all use a gun barrel spec steel in the guns, ML or otherwise. But in America we have the "cheaper is better" attitude in MLing. People will not pay for a barrel made of 4150 mil spec. First for small operators its hard to get since its only made in large lots like 100 tons. Its hard to cut and a cut rifled barrel will need lapping. Can't do that and still get some cheapskate ML shooter to pay 400+ for a barrel. So short cuts are taken. Barrels made of a steel that is "not recommended for pressure vessel use" are easy to cut, cut really smooth the exteriors machine like butter too so there is no after work to do. they screw in a breech plug so the tang lines up with a flat and viola! A barrel is made. Of course the breeching has oil/fouling traps and needed to be replaced or reworked. But if the new owner never checks who cares? Right? After all the makers really know their stuff right?
-
very nice counter argument, being in construction the steps part does ring the bell.So with that said are there builders here who refuse to use barrels made from steels less than ideal for muzzleloader barrels?I try to see both sides so I get the I won't be able to charge the extra amount for better steel and Extra labor costs involved.There must be a middle of the road but again are you just rolling the dice?
-
...
Btw has anyone here ever talked to a barrel maker who DIDN'T use 12L14 about it? Other than myself, probably not. Heh heh!
Dan
Of course I have.
Thanks for your input Dan. Always appreciate your experience and straight talk.
-
So I guess in light of all this, and I appreciate that this has been maintained as a civil and largely factual based conversation (I hate seeing threads locked), would I be a troublemaker to bring up the super long fowler barrels made of 12L and threaded together in two pieces?
8)
-
So I guess in light of all this, and I appreciate that this has been maintained as a civil and largely factual based conversation (I hate seeing threads locked), would I be a troublemaker to bring up the super long fowler barrels made of 12L and threaded together in two pieces?
8)
Troublemaker or one who lives under a bridge?
-
LOL ;D
-
Is that seriously how you see it? Because I have to say - much of the information posted here is based upon metallurgical fact, and yet there seems to be an ample pushback, but with little factual evidence as refutation. Plenty of anecdotal evidence. We as consumers of these barrels and people who rely upon such barrels to make a living are relying upon the makers of blackpowder barrels to undertake the due diligence to ensure that the base material is sufficient for product safety, yet here we have the manufacture of such material very clearly stating such material is not suitable for gun barrels. So in light of that, I'm also thinking of certain practices involved in the making of these barrels. I know that the concept of threading two pieces together to yield a longer blank/finished product has been very controversial, certainly more controversial than the use of 12L itself. Perhaps not in print, but I have personally been either party-to or present during very heated arguments relative to this practice. Given the articles and factual information Mr. Kelly has put forth and given the additional information in this thread - Mr Phariss I don't agree with you all the time but your information is extremely valuable so thank you - I think it's a legitimate concern, especially given that I've used long barrels made in this manner and furthermore would like to continue using extremely long barrels for particular projects. So what does such joint construction do to the structural integrity of the material?
I don't see it as trolling despite the fact that I often try to interject a bit of levity into pretty much any situation. That's to be considered standard. From me, anyway.
-
super long fowler barrels made of 12L and threaded together in two pieces?
No worries Eric - as they say, God watches out for drunks and fools....
That issue aside, pressure drops off rapidly as you go down the barrel. How far are the threads from the breech? Another issue to consider is thread engagement. Rule of thumb for engineers, five threads will give you the same strength as the original material. There are caveats, but this is a good estimation.
-
Typically right at the junction of the octagonal section to the round section, so anywhere from @ 12" to 16". Still a good bit of pressure.
-
Davec2
Seems to me you rocket guys had some failures in the 1960's because some heat treated alloy steel parts, maybe shells, don't know, failed in a brittle manner. Tensile strength just fine.
About that time someone developed the science (engineering?) of fracture toughness.
Barrels rarely blow because the metal has too low a tensile strength.
The metallurgy is tedious to describe. Good reading for an insomniac is my three-part series in 1985 Muzzle Blasts. You know how to get them.
Tensile strength is not the issue here. Just for fun, here is an excerpt from Nov 1985 article, which in turn came from ASTM Technical Publication No. 158 (1953),
page 48.
"Mr. Barnaby deplores: 'Recent cases have occurred of fracture in Bessemer bars...from some trifling blow or strain...they nearly all took place during the late severe weather at Chatham.' In the ensuing discussion of this paper Mr. Barnaby was roundly denounced by the assemblage (Dear Reader, I can personally assure you that human nature has remained unchanged over the century which separates N. Barnaby from J. Kelly). However, in the same discussion, one Mr. Kirk complains of the cracking of steel in a mysterious manner. In particular, he cites a steel plate that 'when cold, on being thrown down, split right up. Pieces cut from either side of the split stood all the Admiralty tests. Now given a material capable of standing without breaking an extension of 20 percent he wanted to know...how a plate...could split with a very slight extension...not to the extent of 1 percent.'
Mr. Kirk thereupon asked the steel makers for a remedy to this problem...His question was totally ignored by the members present. Today the problem is yet with us, and modern engineers and metallurgists are still striving to satisfy Mr. Kirk's request."
A century later, fracture mechanics expert Charles H. Maak related a similar experience. When a deliveryman accidentally dropped a bar of 1200 series steel onto concrete at about 32°F, it too broke apart. This is the same kind of steel that might be expected to elongate 15% or so in a tensile test.
To quote from a favorite TV series, "The information is out there. All you have to do is let it in"
-
Is that seriously how you see it?
I don't see it as trolling despite the fact that I often try to interject a bit of levity into pretty much any situation. That's to be considered standard. From me, anyway.
I was attempting some levity, Eric. Everybody knows you're a serious researcher and student of the longrifle.
Maybe the threaded joint question could be raised in another thread. It seems tangential to the materials question. Maybe more accurately, overlapping but not congruent.
-
Back to barrel steels: it seems to me much of the data and most or perhaps the critical incident(s) with 12L14 were with Douglas barrels which it seems may have accumulated additional stress from being drawn to octagonal shape. Perhaps most agree at least this was an additional variable.
I am thinking of barrel makers contemporary with Douglas barrels; GRRW, Sharon, and Paris come to mind. I seem to recall Sharon button rifled their smaller calibers then stress relieved the barrels.
How much does the processing (drawing to new shape vs stock removal) and stress relieving of 12L14 affect the properties important for integrity in use as a ML gun barrel? Are we tending to lump all 12L14 barrels together here?
-
Eric
I'd think that this could be done safely, but I would take it seriously. Number of threads per inch matter, finish on the threads matter, and the torque spec matters. Otherwise, there should be enough steel there to do this in a reasonable manner. Talk this over with an engineer. The calculations are straightforward, and whatever the engineer charges you is money well spent.
Rich - Sorry for the digression but I'm all done with this now. This is a straightforward mechanical engineering problem, and doesn't need a whole thread of its own.
-
How much does the processing (drawing to new shape vs stock removal) and stress relieving of 12L14 affect the properties important for integrity in use as a ML gun barrel? Are we tending to lump all 12L14 barrels together here?
That's a very important question, especially considering that there have been (historically, i.e. over the past 50 years) multiple ways the manufacture has been accomplished: the drawing to octagonal shape, the screw-press method (was that Paris?) and the most common method [for tapered/flared barrels) which seems to be turning down to progressive diameters on a lathe, then milling flats. There might be others of which I'm not aware.
Rich I'm only serious some of the time. The other half, probably not... I do get kicks out of a good brouhaha. Sorry!
-
Eric
I'd think that this could be done safely, but I would take it seriously. Number of threads per inch matter, finish on the threads matter, and the torque spec matters. Otherwise, there should be enough steel there to do this in a reasonable manner. Talk this over with an engineer. The calculations are straightforward, and whatever the engineer charges you is money well spent.
Rich - Sorry for the digression but I'm all done with this now. This is a straightforward mechanical engineering problem, and doesn't need a whole thread of its own.
Jose, no problem. Perhaps some engineer could comment on whether on those long barrels with a threaded joint in the middle, the pressure has reduced by the time the ball gets to the joint? Say 30" from the breech. My limited understanding is that pressures are highest at the breech at the time of ignition, and as the ball and charge gain velocity the pressure diminishes.
-
Perhaps, someone could find an engineering student who's also interested in muzzleloading to take on such a project as a masters or doctorate subject.
In terms of a study along the lines of what Eric is asking for, it would seem most relevant to seek out shooters that can document claims of having shot 10-20,000 rounds from a 12L14 barrel and offer to buy them back so that an engineering student can look at them. I'm sure that if a mounting a new barrel (of their choice) to their rifle was also offered in addition to buying back the "used" one, there would be takers interested in furthering the cause. Heck, I bet the Marsh Family from KY could even supply sample barrels. For as much shooting as they do and after years of dominating offhand matches at Friendship, I'm sure they have gone through plenty of 12L14 barrels.
Someone else here mentioned they didn't know how to simulate that many rounds fired through a new barrel. Using "real" barrels that have been heavily used for years would seem to give the most accurate representation of the affects of pressure over time.
So, after 4 pages of discussion, the two take-home points for me are:
A) No one has done a study of 12L14 muzzleloader barrels to determine the effects of repeated firing on the steel over time, and..
B) The vast majority modern-day muzzleloader shooters are cheap SOB's unwilling to pay for barrels made from steels deemed to be suitable for gun barrels.
There is a lot of quoting of metallurgical properties of different steels going on here and these are things that I have neither the knowledge nor the desire to comprehend or refute. There are also lots of facts being woven into passionate arguments aimed to convince me that I shouldn't be shooting barrels made of 12L14 steel. However, no one has definitive proof (backed by studies such as Eric originally asked about) that I shouldn't be either. The bottom line for me is that if 12L14 steel is such a bad choice (safety-wise) for a muzzle loading rifle barrel, why does it continuously defy the laws of physics and logic? Physics and logic suggest that barrels made of 12L14 steel should be failing at a high rate, but they are not.
A researcher may examine a used 12L14 barrel and find that the steel has become brittle and unsafe after 10-15,000 cycles. Then again, that researcher might examine a used 12L14 barrel and find that there is no change at all in barrel steel integrity after 10-15,000 cycles. We just don't know and all the speculation in the world doesn't make it so. My only point is that until you explore Take-Home Point A, there is no definitive proof that makes Take-Home Point B necessary. To me, definitive proof can come only after examining barrels that have been in constant use over time. If someone shows me definitive proof that I'm at (increasingly) serious risk every time I fire one of my 12L14 barrels, I'll retire them. Until then, I guess I'll have to stand among the ranks of the cheap SOB's willing to take unnecessary risks.
-
Tensile strength of anything is not a major issue with contemporary muzzle loader barrels.
The effect of repeated firing would not, I believe be important unless the barrel had a crack, seam, or other notch to begin with. The crack, or crack started at a notch, may grow each time the metal is stressed.
That is what happened to the gentleman who lost all but little finger & pinky on his right hand. Barrel had been proofed, shot an estimated 200 some times with black powder. A piece recovered later showed the thing had a rather long, deep crack in it.
It is not tensile strength.
It is toughness, the ability NOT to crack at a notch. A notch may be a long seam in the metal, not uncommon in your favorite barrel steel, or poorly designed breech, or too very deep a dovetail. In Remington shotguns I believe it was some stamping near the breech, at least for the earlier failures.
Tensile strength is not the issue.
Barrel steels in use have sufficient tensile strength.
-
Just to add to the discussion: Dan mentioned Remington and trap shooters. I personally know of a Remington 1100 that cracked after 250,000 plus rds. personal friend named Dave Chapman bought the gun new early 1970s--cracked late 90's. Remington sent him a new gun :) Sometime last year a Krieghof failed at the breech(top barrel If i recall) at a registered shoot in Kokomo Indiana. A friend of mine was there and showed me the pictures(he didn't know the round count and no there was no obstruction in the barrel). Dan also mentioned machineguns and VietNam. Army recommends depot check for lug crack on M-16 bolt after 5000rds. (Carpenter 158 Steel).
Point---All steels can fail and that steel work hardens just like non-ferrous metals.
As far as Eric's question concerning pressure 10-12 inches from breech(threaded portion from what I understand on long barrels). FWIW I shoot a smokeless muzzle loader---custom rifle on a Remington 700 receiver(4140 barrel) and the strain gauge testing that has been done with these guns shows that the pressure drop that far from the breech is a lot---something like dropping from a peak of around 45000-49000psi,depending on the load and powder, to well under 30000psi maybe more if i recall) with a single powder(some guys are using booster charges of a faster powder and getting a double peak but the second pressure peak is very much lower. This information is posted on Doug's message boards if you want to check my numbers---I'm too lazy at the moment.
Carry on---Steve
Steve
-
Back to barrel steels: it seems to me much of the data and most or perhaps the critical incident(s) with 12L14 were with Douglas barrels which it seems may have accumulated additional stress from being drawn to octagonal shape. Perhaps most agree at least this was an additional variable.
I am thinking of barrel makers contemporary with Douglas barrels; GRRW, Sharon, and Paris come to mind. I seem to recall Sharon button rifled their smaller calibers then stress relieved the barrels.
How much does the processing (drawing to new shape vs stock removal) and stress relieving of 12L14 affect the properties important for integrity in use as a ML gun barrel? Are we tending to lump all 12L14 barrels together here?
The early debate on this subject of barrel steel goes back to the days of the Buckskin Report and Black Powder Report. At that time the one manufacturer who had most of the problems was T/C.
By 1984 T/C had contracted with a university to look into the failures of their barrels. They claimed that only the use of smokeless powder or smokeless admixed with black could burst their barrels. The university lab then proved this. Or thought they did. When I read their report I went to work in my lab. They claimed they had irrefutable laboratory proof that only smokeless powder could blow up one of their barrels. They would wash the broken barrel parts with acetone to dissolve any traces of smokeless powder or to pick up lower oxides of nitrogen from the pores in the metal. The claim was that black powder is not soluble in acetone while smokeless powder is. The barrel washings were then dried, acidified and checked with diphenylamine. The same test method police used to look at a person's hand to see if they had fired a gun.
But when I looked at the university lab's work I knew right away it was questionable. In some tests they would use du Pont black powder and GOEX in other tests. Now in 1984 the chances of some guy being handed a can of du Pont black powder with a new T/C Hawken rifle were nil. So why the switching back and forth. The end result was that they simply proved that GOEX black powder, and NOT smokeless, had been used in the guns where the barrels blew up. I then confronted the two from the university that played this slight of hand. Was treated to some fancy footwork back pedaling. According to their test method. Every time I shot my GPR at the range I Had burned smokeless in it. The "proof" of smokeless test gave a higher positive in my bp rifle than in my Mini-14 after a 30 round mag firing. When GOEX bp out of Mossic is run through that test it gave a very strong positive in the test. The chemical decomposition in the powder gave lower oxides of nitrogen from the potassium nitrate and that is what their so-called proof test looked for. But they used the du Pont in any work that would be followed by the acetone wash.
-
As reluctant as I am to jump in here again, I have two comments and a couple of general questions.
Comment #1: To JCKelly about rocket failures in the 1960s......you don't know the half of it. :) I have worked building engines for the Space Shuttle, Atlas, Delta, Peacekeeper and a host of other spacecraft and weapon missile systems since 1981. We have exhaustively tested a myriad of metallic and non metallic materials to their absolute limits tens of thousands of times during development programs, often times with almost unlimited budgets. However, added to the design complexity for us, our hardware has to FLY, so it cannot be built to ASME boiler code with safety factors of 4 or greater. And, many of the systems are man rated....someone's life depends on the hardware working without failure. While rare, we still have had failures anyway. I understand what you are saying about tensile strength, toughness, etc., but I have used the very best material that any amount of money can buy and designs that unbelievably concentrated brain power can devise.....and still had the @!*% thing fail. Material flaws will always occur. Some number of gun barrels will always fail for various reasons no matter what material they are made out of. If the object of the game here is to select a useable material that will not fail as a gun barrel under ANY circumstances, I respectfully submit that there is no such material.
Comment #2: To Galudwig....I love your two take home points ! (Especially B) But with regard to point A, Dan noted in a previous post that even a thorough test program would not tell you much because it might be the very next untested barrel that would fail or the one you tested to 15,000 rounds would fail on round number 15,001....so...probably not worth doing the testing.
Question #1. How many people on this very board have had a barrel (made out of any material) fail ? (Not heard about a failure....actually had one and under normal circumstances....i.e. not triple loaded, bore full of mud, "I only used 330 grains of BullsEye....I don't understand what happened !.... etc.) I think that this very group of builders, shooters, barrel makers, barrel users....many of whom have years and years of experience and who have fired thousands and thousands of rounds through all types of barrels...we are the best data base available....and, most importantly, we all get one another's opinions for free ! :)
Question #2. I can understand why they might not want to participate here, but of all the current manufactures and / or sellers of ML barrels (Chambers, Getz, Rice, TOW, Colerain, etc.) how many have had legal issues resulting from a failed barrel ? (As far as I am aware, none of them has been sued out of business in many years....am I wrong?)
Question #3. For Dan....for the guns you build, what kind of steel are your barrels made from and where do you get them? If I don't want to use a 12L14 barrel, what are my options?
Thanks
-
Tensile strength of anything is not a major issue with contemporary muzzle loader barrels.
The effect of repeated firing would not, I believe be important unless the barrel had a crack, seam, or other notch to begin with. The crack, or crack started at a notch, may grow each time the metal is stressed.
It is toughness, the ability NOT to crack at a notch. A notch may be a long seam in the metal, not uncommon in your favorite barrel steel, or poorly designed breech, or too very deep a dovetail.
So, is it safe to say that:
A) Any barrel (regardless of the type of steel used in it's construction) can fail if it has a crack, seam or notch in it,
B) Some barrel steels (by their nature, make-up, and/or manufacture) are more likely to start out with a crack, seam or notch in it, and...
C) Some barrel steels (by their nature, make-up, and/or manufacture) resist cracking at the flaws better than others.
If this were true, then it seems plausible that you could stuff all those metallurgical factoids into some sort of equation that would tell you how many times more likely a 12L14 barrel would fail compared to one made out of something like 4140. While that would be useful information for those concerned with barrel safety, it still doesn't explain why 12L14 barrels aren't failing as often as the numbers say they should. I'm beginning to wonder if there is really any practical way to determine that.
As for proofing, I always wondered why you would call it "good to go" if a double charge didn't blow the barrel? Yeah, it might have held for the proof load, but was it the proof load that started the crack in the barrel that eventually led to the guy losing his pinky or was that crack there to begin with? Who can say definitively?
After reading davec2's last post, all I can say is "Amen!" Don't think I can add much after that, so I think I'll crack a cold one, sit back and enjoy the rest of the show! ;)
-
Rich and Eric
Here's an estimate for barrel pressure at different distances from the breech for a 12 bore. The assumptions in the calculation are 1) peak pressure is 15,000 psi 1" from the breech face 2) no pressure is lost out of the vent, and 3) pressure is directly proportional to volume (Boyle's Law). Units are inches from the breech and PSI.
1" 15,000
2" 7,500
6" 2,498
12" 1,249
15" 999
24" 624
30" 500
A note on proof testing – If the proof test is correctly designed, it can predict barrel life, but only if the barrel diameter is measured very accurately before and after the test. Without the measurement, all you have learned is that the barrel did not fail that time. The test cannot take into account changes in the steel properties, such was work hardening, or the future behavior of a hidden flaw.
If you’re interested, look up fatigue limit and yield point. This is a complex topic, but these are the basic principals involved. As JCKelly pointed out "The information is out there. All you have to do is let it in".
-
If I don't want to use a 12L14 barrel, what are my options?
That is really at the heart of this debate. Unless Green Mountain resumes production of swamped barrels, there are no other options for them other than ones made from 12L14. If you are looking to use straight barrels, you have a couple choices, but not for swamped.
If there was a barrel maker who switched to a true gun barrel steel for swamped barrels and everyone flocked to him for their barrels, other makers would follow suit. Green Mountain tried it, and apparently discontinued production. If it was profitable it would be assumed they would still be in production. Maybe if there is enough demand they would re-introduce them...
-
Couple of things.
If you really want to know why I say "tensile strength is not the issue here" look over
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/historical-failures-evolution-fracture-mechanics-ajay-taneja
Designing on tensile strength got a lot of people dead in Boston, and a couple hundred Liberty Ships sunk in WWII - at least one just broke in half while resting in harbor. Argue all you want about it. This is life where steel is concerned. Steel is not brass, it is not even wrought iron. Steel is steel and it behaves in its own way
Much of this is beyond me technically. The part that might be clear is -
LIBERTY SHIP FAILURE: BRITTLE FRACTURES AND THE BIRTH OF FRACTURE MECHANICS
Some kinds of steel can withstand a notch or crack better than others. To my recollection, I saw only one "fracture mechanics" test result on 12L14, and it was about the same number as a real good ceramic. Good ceramic, bad ceramic, who cares.
It is hard to get any steel mill to clearly define what they mean by "Gun Barrel Quality" and "Rifle Barrel Quality" steel. Lawyers/litigation/lawyers/lawyers/lawyers
make them leery. They tend to wave their hands a lot when asked. My one experience with this was when my employer had an order for 416 stainless (free-machining, magnetic stainless used in firearms). The US producers barely waved their hands. The Swedes, who are handicapped by having native honesty, at least gave a verbal description. Without being too cynical, GBQ or RBQ steel is some grade to which sulfur has been added so the barrel maker can machine it faster, yet has been carefully produced and tested so that all that sulfur doesn't (isn't supposed to) glom all together in one place, and the bar hopefully has no seams in it. Responsible MODERN riflemakers magnetic particle inspect each barrel for seams, even those below the surface.
As others have said, a small barrel maker just can't get a hold of this product in lots of under one zillion pounds.
Well, the next step . . . since I don't want to get sued, either, hmm. Why doncha
start out looking under, say www.aerospacemetals.com/
One example of what they carry is E4130 Aircraft Quality bar.This is approximately the steel used in good shotgun barrels, such as Rugerwhentheymadethem, Browning, definitely not unmentionabletoavoidlawsuit.
This is just an example for your perusal.
" E4130 Aircraft Quality Bars
4130 is an electric-furnace, through-hardening, chromium-molybdenum alloy processed to meet the rigid standards of the aircraft industry and vacuum degassed to conform to the magnetic particle inspection standards of AMS-2301. Its excellent weldability, formability and temperate hardenability predispose this alloy to a wide range of applications. Normalizing without liquid quenching increases its strength sufficiently for most uses; however, it may be heat treated for greater strength. It may be nitrited for maximum wear and abrasion resistance.
Applications
Type 4130 finds exceptional use where extremely high strength and hardness are required from relatively thin sections. It finds major use in applications requiring welding. It is extensively used in the aircraft industry for parts and components. "
A number of warehouses carry this stuff. Don't know what their minimum order is but it sure is not a mill heat.
That is it. Time for dinner
-
Much of this discussion is several levels above my pay grade so this may be a simplistic question.
If one were using barrels made out of 12L14 would going to a thicker barrel wall or just a heavier barrel period be any safer?
Remington back in the 19th century made barrels of cast steel which were quite heavy for caliber and sold widely.
Maybe they were compensating for imperfect or brittle steel through sheer mass?
-
Much of this discussion is several levels above my pay grade so this may be a simplistic question.
If one were using barrels made out of 12L14 would going to a thicker barrel wall or just a heavier barrel period be any safer?
Remington back in the 19th century made barrels of cast steel which were quite heavy for caliber and sold widely.
Maybe they were compensating for imperfect or brittle steel through sheer mass?
I had a fine heavy 40 caliber with a 1 and 1/8 octagon marked on the bottom flat "Remington Cast Steel"
and on the top,N.G. Whitmore, The rifle was a butt stock style,no fore arm,fine wood and silver trim.
Butt stock configured exactly like the Whitmore made for General Grant in 1866. Sight was a telescope
full length of the barrel.I don't think any normal load would be a threat in a 12L14 barrel of this caliber.
A 13/16 in 45 caliber is another proposition.
Bob Roller
-
Unfortunately where toughness is concerned, thicker is, if anything, worse. Not sure why, smart metallurgists could tell you. But thin things are tougher than thick things, with the same chemistry and strength.
Here is a paragraph I forgot to include in my last post, mostly fyi:
E4130 Aircraft Quality Sheet and Plate
Type 4130 is an electric-furnace processed, chromium-molybdenum aircraft quality alloy used primarily for welding or where moderate tensile strength is a requirement. The careful processing it undergoes completely eliminates the possibility of seams, grooves, pitting or blistering. It also undergoes diligent inspection and rolling to insure its freedom from lamination and tears. It is available in the normalized or annealed condition, and maybe pickled and oiled.
Emphasis mine.
Someone asked how about plain old 1018? Well, it is good stuff, better than was used back in the day. Two problems. No one, so far as I know, makes this stuff processed to avoid all cracks or seams. Steel bars don't have seams very often but they in deed do have them on occasion. That is OK, so long as you have your own magnetic particle inspecting machine. Second, 1018 is always cold drawn to give better strength and machinability. This, too is OK except the stuff is full of residual stresses. To make any sort of barrel out of it one must first anneal it about 1100-1200F to get rid of those stresses.
-
Hey.....at the risk of throwing a hand grenade into a powder magazine here....has anyone here asked Steve Bookout about how his 100 + hand forge welded barrels have panned out for reliability ? :o
-
It seems to me that most of the barrel failures people cite were in the 60’s and 70’s. Is that true?
Are there recent (last 20 years) examples of barrel failures that are definitely not due to smokeless powder, short started balls or other misuse?
Given the litigious nature of our society, I think normal use barrel failures must be exceedingly rare, simply because a small manufacturer could not afford very much litigation. One good lawsuit would likely put them out of business.
Are there any manufacturers out there who are willing to comment on this subject?
-
I think you would be very hard-pressed to get any type of information like that out of a barrel maker. This being said, I also suspect that you are correct in that I don't think in more recent years (I'll arbitrarily say 1990s onward) there have been any that I recall hearing about, *save* a couple of verified incidents with the barrels made from hydraulic tubing and one incident of which I'm aware involving a pistol barrel turned down from bronze bearing stock.
-
Where these the muskets from India? I don't know all the stories with them, something about fouling and bad breechplug an such. As with 12l14 barrels, there are a lot of those muskets, and other manufacturers that used DOM and some shoot them all the time with no problem.
So from this discussion I've read that just about all materials modern day barrel makers and gunsmiths use in the muzzleloading field are incorrect on paper, but seems to work on the field under responsible shooters. I'm still waiting on the opinions about the two piece barrels. I've met a couple of reenactors with them in a HVF and a French Buccaneer. Both shot them without any fear.
I have used Getz, Rice, Colerain, Rayl, and shot DOM from a friend's gun. I didn't fear any of them. Even the most questionable, DOM Indian guns, don't fail at alarming rates, or theyd be out of business by now. On paper we should fear all these barrels, and yet we are all still here. I've learned many things about barrels in this conversation, but after five pages, nothing has changed.
Greg
PS I'd shoot a hand forged barrel from a modern day builder like Colonial Williamsburg without hesitation as well.
-
I'd like to clarify, also after 5 pages of GOOD and polite discussion. I did not want this thread to turn into some kind of public bashing of any/all modern barrel makers. Nor did I necessarily think it would turn into an all-out war over 12L, and I think I mentioned that pretty clearly at the beginning (it is, and remains, controversial). I was hoping to get some metallurgical information, simply to see what might be 'out there,' and also was hoping for some type of long term or repetitive use study that apparently does not exist. Thanks very much to all who posted for a really detailed, good discussion.
-
conquerordie - There is sufficient steel at the octagon to round transition to make a safe screw joint. Important considerations are threads per inch, torque specification and thread finish. These calculations are straightforward and you can find the equations on the net. Better yet, consult your friendly local professional engineer. My main concern would be long term corrosion.
Eric - Agreed. This conversation has been both polite and useful. Thanks for starting it.
Barrel Makers - Are you paying attention? There is a market for gun barrels made from more appropriate steels that have been properly heat treated. Green Mountain can produce them at the same price point as 12L14, but that's Green Mountain. Since GM swamped barrels are no longer available, and they never made fowler barrels as far as I know, I think you could certainly get a premium for these barrels.
-
Barrel Makers - Are you paying attention? There is a market for gun barrels made from more appropriate steels that have been properly heat treated. Green Mountain can produce them at the same price point as 12L14, but that's Green Mountain. Since GM swamped barrels are no longer available, and they never made fowler barrels as far as I know, I think you could certainly get a premium for these barrels.
You folks are missing the point on Green Mountain. Branch Meanley told us when he owned the company, they had 3 lines......2 for smokeless and one dedicated for black powder barrels. He was and still is a competitor at Friendship. When he sold the company, they acquired military and private contracts for "black gun" barrels. In order to keep up with demand and to meet their contract deadlines they put the 3rd line in production making them. It was purely a financial decision of a company maximizing its resources. Their monthly production far exceeds the annual production of any current ML barrel maker.
-
TOF
I am aware of GM’s history. They made swamped black powder barrels when it fit their business model, and quit making them when the barrels were no longer a good fit for what they were doing. That’s business. But what is profitable for a large business and what is profitable for a small business can be two very different things.
My point is this: there is a market for “gun barrel steel” barrels (whatever that means). Some of us would be willing to pay a premium for them. How much? Personally, I’d be happy to pay 20-50% over the current cost of a barrel, just for my own peace of mind. Would anybody else pay that much? I don’t know, you’d have to ask. Can a small manufacturer afford to make these barrels at that price point? I don’t know. Perhaps one of them will comment.
-
If the 100 ton minimum order is correct for "gun Barrel" certified steel, I don't see many ML barrel makers jumping on that one. That would be enough for what, 20-30 thousand barrels?
Even if all the ML barrel makers in the country got together for the purchase, I doubt that would pencil out... Then throw in whatever re-tooling that would be required,,, Hmmmm,,, good luck.
It does look like 4150 is available in small amounts, but is that a certified barrel steel?
John
-
TOF
My point is this: there is a market for “gun barrel steel” barrels (whatever that means). Some of us would be willing to pay a premium for them. How much? Personally, I’d be happy to pay 20-50% over the current cost of a barrel, just for my own peace of mind. Would anybody else pay that much? I don’t know, you’d have to ask. Can a small manufacturer afford to make these barrels at that price point? I don’t know. Perhaps one of them will comment.
My cursory research says that a the price of the steel for a barrel, when bought as one unit, is about $25 for 12L14 and $50 for 4140.
The additional costs of machining would be the bulk of additional costs. I would speculate that some ML shooters could use button barrels. Octagon shapes could be bought as such from the mill. Carbide tools can be used. The barrel would need to be made with more efficient processes.
Producing a swamped cut rifled barrel by traditional means would certainly be more money but is that always necessary?
-
Google Scholar will search for legal cases (or journal articles) for those interested in pursuing that inquiry, here is an example: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22barrel+failure%22+%28rifle%7Cshotgun%7Cgun%29&btnG=&as_sdt=6%2C25&oq=barrel (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22barrel+failure%22+%28rifle%7Cshotgun%7Cgun%29&btnG=&as_sdt=6%2C25&oq=barrel)
Since there is no standard terminology for the problem, you may want to search using a variety of relevant search terms, i.e. rifle, shotgun, gun, barrel, failure, defect, stress, etc. in multiple combinations. The cases you find will cite other cases which may be pertinent. Legal cases only offer guidance on legal issues, so technical information on barrels or steel will be an indirect concern of the court.
I gently and respectfully ask that if you wish to discuss the legalities of this issue (and I do not), that you start a new thread so as not to dilute the technical discussion in this thread.
Eric, my apologies that this is not directly responsive to your questions. I wish you good luck, as I also research questions that have few, if any, known answers and understand the frustration of wanting more information than is available.
Regards to all,
Carl
-
If the 100 ton minimum order is correct for "gun Barrel" certified steel, I don't see many ML barrel makers jumping on that one. That would be enough for what, 20-30 thousand barrels?
Assuming a typical barrel is made from 48" stock, 1 1/2" diameter, that's about 8,314 barrels. I don't know if that's a one year supply or a ten year supply, but it seems like it could be in a range that is plausible for one of the larger ML manufacturers to consider. I also don't know if 100 tons is really the minimum order for these steels.
We are digressing from the main thread, I think.
-
It does look like 4150 is available in small amounts, but is that a certified barrel steel?
John
4140/4150 heat treated hot rolled bar at 28-32 RC is very common and easily obtained, that is not gun barrel certified. I use quite a bit of it in my shop, up to 12" in diameter, for tooling that I make for a couple of local factories. I regularly see small cracks in the material when turning it on the lathe. Fine cracks, 1/4" to 1/2" long x less than .100" deep, usually in the outside 1/2" of the material. I would assume that x-ray would show the cracks, but do they x-ray every bar of gun barrel certified material? I had read somewhere that all LaSalle Stressproof 1144 is x-rayed for cracking. I also machine 41L42 3" OD cold rolled bar for tooling and I have never seen any lead occlusions or cracking. I remember Don Getz mentioning in a post several years ago that when they are turning a barrel blank and find a crack, that they scrap the barrel.
Mark
-
Carl Young that is exactly the information that is needed. Surely a young Computer Guy can look up the vast number of firearms lawsuits held over the last couple of decades.
In the early '90's I was asked to participate in a Remington shogun lawsuit. I did not, both because it would have been a conflict of interest with my employer and because I really don't have much experience with modern shotguns.
The interesting part is that lawyer sent me a list of about two dozen firearms lawsuits that year. Every maker had one or two lawsuits. Remington, however, a very large number, forget details.
However one gets such a list it would be most informative about muzzle loaders. In the absence of John Baird there is no one person keeping track of them.
One last metallurgical comment. Xrays do not find cracks. In steel one uses a magnetic particle inspection method.
I have presented all the metallurgical information you gentlemen need, should you choose to read it.
Ach, weh ist mir, genug bitte
-
Dad Gumit. Went and bought a Colerain barrel at a gunshow last night and now find out it's going to kill me if I shoot it....shucks..... :-\
I believe 12L14 is here to stay for barrel material. I'd rather use that than seamless tubing stuff. We've been over this before, I don't think I have read anything new, but it's important to air this subject every now and again. Hey, it's all fun till somebody gets their eye poked out. ;)
-
If the 100 ton minimum order is correct for "gun Barrel" certified steel, I don't see many ML barrel makers jumping on that one. That would be enough for what, 20-30 thousand barrels?
Assuming a typical barrel is made from 48" stock, 1 1/2" diameter, that's about 8,314 barrels. I don't know if that's a one year supply or a ten year supply, but it seems like it could be in a range that is plausible for one of the larger ML manufacturers to consider. I also don't know if 100 tons is really the minimum order for these steels.
We are digressing from the main thread, I think.
There are steel sellers today that will GLADLY sell what ever they have in short sections. I bought a couple of feet
of 8620 and just yesterday made a die holder from a short section.I bought 2 bars of 1018 for Hawken trigger bars
and still have them and they came from Metal Super Markets in Maryland. I have bought short sections of 1144
Stressproof for tumblers and sizing dies. I also bought 50 or more 6 foot sections of 12L14 in 5/32 diameter for
lock screws for very little money.It appears that the days of calling a steel supplier and being rudely told "We don't
deal with people like you"if you don't want a train load.I have had this happen but NOT recently.
Bob Roller
-
I just did a really quick search, here's an interesting comparison. Retail pricing for 1.5" diameter rod, 4 ft long, one piece:
12L14: $47.68
1144 stressproof: $107.12
4130 normalized: $87.04
4140 cold finish annealed: $69.62
8620: $74.65
None of these are certified or documented gun barrel quality, however. But interesting comparison; not much of a price difference in the overall cost of a barrel if you're not using certified ordnance/gun barrel steel.
-
OK, it’s been established that YOU can buy ANY steel of YOUR choice. (It only takes money.)
Please make sure that YOU also have enough material for a breech plug too.
Then, YOU can VT, MT, PT, UT and RT it to check for “discontinuities” and send it back if YOU are not completely satisfied.
(Please be aware that not all “discontinuities” are “rejectable”… Even in “gun barrel certified” steels.)
Now, when YOU finally have YOUR perfect piece of material, YOU will have to find someone who will bore, rifle, breech and profile the piece.
Once that is done YOU can “proof fire” said barrel and then re-do the VT, MT, PT, UT and RT to make sure that no NEW discontinuities have appeared or, that the existing ones hadn’t grown to a “rejectable” size.
Those with a scientific bent will then make EMAT transducers that will mimic ram-rod pipes.
The battery pack and transmitter can be stored in the "typically unused patch-box" and ALL data will be immediately transmitted using wi-fi to YOUR smart phone.
YOU will have to “record the readings” when the rifle is taken from a heated house to the cold or frigid hunting environment as well as when it is taken from an air-conditioned house to a sunny and hot shooting range.
Don’t forget to “record” the same in reverse!
Then, the readings YOU took will have to be done again while firing the rifle.
After that, YOU will have to develop an “acceptable threshold” for the “normal” moans, groans, creaks, cracks, and pops that the rifle makes while at rest and “when in use”.
Don’t forget that YOU should VT, MT, PT, UT and RT at regular intervals to make sure that YOUR previously recorded discontinuities have not grown to rejectable proportions.
(YOU weren’t going to rely on EMAT alone were YOU?)
Then again, one could just go back to throwing stones … Just be mindful of those pesky ricochets! ::)
Cheers,
Smoketown
PS
I wonder what kind of steel was used in THOSE barrels?? ;D Reply #12.
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=41884.msg407700#msg407700
-
I just did a really quick search, here's an interesting comparison. Retail pricing for 1.5" diameter rod, 4 ft long, one piece:
12L14: $47.68
1144 stressproof: $107.12
4130 normalized: $87.04
4140 cold finish annealed: $69.62
8620: $74.65
None of these are certified or documented gun barrel quality, however. But interesting comparison; not much of a price difference in the overall cost of a barrel if you're not using certified ordnance/gun barrel steel.
I Am a Master Engraver in the FEGA. I engrave modern and antique firearms composed of 12L14, 1137, 8620, and 4140 or 4150 steel. I also do a fair amount of machine work on them. There is a vast difference between 12L14 and cutting 4140 or 4150. I can cut 12L14 all day long with a standard carbon or HSS graver and only sharpen 2 or 3 times. With 4140 or 4150 I must use carbide gravers with a totally different geometry. These gravers are not common carbide but they are called C max. C Max is a very special type of carbide designed for extreme stress.
When cutting 4140 or 4150 I sometimes only get three or four cuts before having to resharpen them. It takes more time sharpening than engraving especially if the cuts are deep.
Time is money. Modern guns use 4140 mostly. The rifling in modern guns are extremely shallow compared to a muzzle loader. The major cost of machining a muzzle loading barrel out of 4140 would be in the machining and the tooling. Most if not all the modern gun barrels are heat treated also. The price of the steel is a minute part of the cost of manufacturing a barrel.
If one were to make a barrel out of a truck axle they would get a good idea of the problems involved.
-
Smoketown, the rifle in that video looked European, I would guess Spanish, and definitely not American.
I believe - correct me please, if wrong - that SpanishItalianGerman gunmakers are required by law to use some kind of proper (low phosphorus, low sulfur) steel, not free-machining.
For what it's worth, they might actually proof test the barrels first. Whatever they used in this rifle was tough stuff, bulging rather than shattering.
I had long thought that smokeless blows a gun up right at the breech, from couple of old photos & this sure makes it clear.
-
If one were to make a barrel out of a truck axle they would get a good idea of the problems involved.
That's a great quote! ;)
-
I posted this recently under shooting, dunno how to find it again.
Anyway, it is a good ol' hand forged wrought iron barrel. About .26 caliber, 15/16" across the flats. Plenty strong.
Except someone brazed up a crack or seam at the breech.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi65.tinypic.com%2F35db8jp.jpg&hash=cfb6429a6020afa123d49c4ee0c4320c1885f2fa)
This is how that braze repair, now green, looks after someone fired a blank salute with it at Friendship. No injury, also no report on clothing condition.
Lent to me by the late Maxine Moss. Guess I'll return it to NMLRA museum through Judy Morgan at the Lapeer show.
You might want to be cautious about shooting guns with braze repaired barrels. Brass doesn't form red rust but it sure turns into green stuff that is no longer metal, in presence of sulfur. Our Holy Black has about 10% sulfur, you all recall.
-
I posted this recently under shooting, dunno how to find it again.
Anyway, it is a good ol' hand forged wrought iron barrel. About .26 caliber, 15/16" across the flats. Plenty strong.
Except someone brazed up a crack or seam at the breech.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi65.tinypic.com%2F35db8jp.jpg&hash=cfb6429a6020afa123d49c4ee0c4320c1885f2fa)
This is how that braze repair, now green, looks after someone fired a blank salute with it at Friendship. No injury, also no report on clothing condition.
Lent to me by the late Maxine Moss. Guess I'll return it to NMLRA museum through Judy Morgan at the Lapeer show.
You might want to be cautious about shooting guns with braze repaired barrels. Brass doesn't form red rust but it sure turns into green stuff that is no longer metal, in presence of sulfur. Our Holy Black has about 10% sulfur, you all recall.
Mr. Kelly,
Cool picture.
Not enough information and too many unanswered questions.
Do you have any end view photos?
Was any testing done?
A 15/16" barrel with an approximately 5/16" hole down the center leaves 5/16" of wall thickness and it blows firing a "blank salute load"?
The brazed area appears to be less than 1/2 the thread length of the breech.
Unless the surface breaking discontinuity (crack) was longer than the brazed area, why would it split where the pressure should be non-existent?
Why did it split down both sides and not just rip open along one side following the nearest rifling groove?
Inquiring minds want to know... ;D
Cheers,
Smoketown
A burned out gunsmith, brokedown welder and CWI with current MT, RT, UT and VT experience. ::)
-
I have seen far more pics of blown up modern gun barrels that I have 12L14 ML barrels. If you aren't paying attention to what you're doing or are a moron you can blow up anything.
I was at F-ship one year stumbling around the flea market when I came across some of those African bead dealers. They had a whole pile of African ML guns leaning against a tree. They actually had conduit material for barrels same thickness at both ends...just plain conduit with a breech plug screwed into the end. They threaded the nipple into the breech plug. These had been fired in the past and not cleaned and showed the rust from it. Incredibly these guns showed no blow outs, quite surprising. :o
-
I posted this recently under shooting, dunno how to find it again.
Anyway, it is a good ol' hand forged wrought iron barrel. About .26 caliber, 15/16" across the flats. Plenty strong.
Except someone brazed up a crack or seam at the breech.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi65.tinypic.com%2F35db8jp.jpg&hash=cfb6429a6020afa123d49c4ee0c4320c1885f2fa)
This is how that braze repair, now green, looks after someone fired a blank salute with it at Friendship. No injury, also no report on clothing condition.
Lent to me by the late Maxine Moss. Guess I'll return it to NMLRA museum through Judy Morgan at the Lapeer show.
You might want to be cautious about shooting guns with braze repaired barrels. Brass doesn't form red rust but it sure turns into green stuff that is no longer metal, in presence of sulfur. Our Holy Black has about 10% sulfur, you all recall.
I have a question with regards to this picture.
What is the lumpy thing protruding out of the one side? What is that? For a 29 caliber on a 15/16's tube, there doesn't appear to be much of a shoulder for a breach plug, it sorta looks like the threads just disappear into the barrel itself. Shouldn't there be a sizable shoulder for such a small hole in a large barrel?
-
That Lumpy Thing is the bolster into which is screwed the nipple. Which is still there and just fine.
Unless the surface breaking discontinuity (crack) was longer than the brazed area, why would it split where the pressure should be non-existent?
Because just forward of the breech plug the pressure, and circumferential stress, is the greatest. The stress does not just disappear a half inch or so back.
Why did it split down both sides and not just rip open along one side following the nearest rifling groove?
Because it split where it was already cracked. Brazing up that crack was not a long-term cure. Be a good idea for y'all neither to braze up barrel cracks, nor to shoot such old barrels as have been brazed.
As my Pennsylvania Dutch college sweetheart would have said (I think), Oy Gevalt des Gottes! Gevalt, Gevalt. She was pretty smart, so I reckon she might have said a bit more.
-
Gaeckle, forgot you asked for another photo. The breechplug was 1/2" dia, 1/2" long, about 11 threads over that half inch. Brazed crack was about 5/16" long.
I just this morning took a closer look closer at that break. I was wrong, I do not believe it was the brazed crack itself that was the problem What had been brazed was about 5/16" of a "cold weld" about 3" long. That weld seam/dry weld was about half way through the barrel wall. Whatever the proper terminology, I do recall I heard an Old Welding Engineer boss called it "Dry Weld", it is where the barrel forger hammered the metal together but it did not stick. The Dry Weld does not really show in this photo.
Harpers Ferry and Springfield Armory proof tested their barrels, those that failed proof were charged to the forger. Failure rate varied from 15% to about 40%, depending upon whether forged by hand, or under a tilt hammer. Also seems to me Mad Monk said something about Harpers Ferry using a very poor grade of iron at one time.
Private gunmakers were under no legal obligation to proof their barrels. I think a good proof load might have found that really, really bad weld.
Don't believe there are any proof laws today in the US. I do know that Ruger proof tested my stainless Old Army.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi63.tinypic.com%2F2pzkwhy.jpg&hash=00e829daa80e5791498bdae63839d52f8c099167)
Brooks, we agree on one thing. No, I would not use seamless tubing either. Seamless tube sometimes is NOT seamless, and the long crack is on the inside bore, where it is least likely to be found. A friend once turned down a piece of heavy walled 1018 tube for me to use as a flint pistol barrel. Whilst turning down the swamped part he saw machining oil bleeding out of a crack. Oh. Didn't use that one. Also at my work I twice saw I.D. cracks in extruded seamless pipe of 310 heat resistant alloy (25% chromium 20% nickel, think stainless on Steroids), also another less common heat resistant grade.
-
JC, do you suppose by the looks of the threads that at some point in time that barrel had been rebreeched with a finer thread count breech plug? I have seen (and have in my possesion) several original breach plugs and for the most part they are tapered and very coarse in threads. The old breech plugs I'm refering to have'nt many threads, maybe 4 to 5 at most. I'm sure you've seen these and know what I speaking of. What's your opinion?
-
It is important to note that it does not look like the breach plug blew out because the threads are intact. I have removed a lot of breach plugs from originals and have yet to find one that was fit to a shoulder in the barrel. All the ones I have removed look like this one as far as a shoulder is concerned.
Those threads do look sort of modern compared to the original ones I have seen.
-
I think there is a possibility when they installed that plug, which looks modern to me as well, they may have put "A LOT" of torque on the plug and may have caused it to "Wedge" apart a little where the seem was. Just Speculation.
-
I think there is a possibility when they installed that plug, which looks modern to me as well, they may have put "A LOT" of torque on the plug and may have caused it to "Wedge" apart a little where the seem was. Just Speculation.
That is something to ponder, I would have never had thought about that.....great speculation on your part.
-
[Has anyone with a metallurgical background conducted a study, or is aware of a study, which examines what may be happening with a barrel of such material over time and use? Not speculation; any kind of study which has really scientifically looked at the effect of repetitive pressure and 'typical' shooting use upon the structure of the steel? I would be interested to know this.
[/quote]
Has anyone mentioned UL Labororatories yet? They test just about anything for any purpose. Perhaps they have test data for metal fatigue as it applies to gun barrels. Is there a set of standards put forth by the FTC ? Let's look at the variables here, the working load instantaneous build of pressure and then timeline release of pressure as the charge of gas expands and pushes the bullet along the length of the barrel. The stresses are going to be different at almost every point along the length of the barrel. The one factor that most likely makes the use of the different steels mentioned during the thread is the pressure release through the touch hole. What happens inside a barrel during firing is a timeline event and the barrel most likely functions as a whole to host this event.
-
This thread made me think of this
http://blog.onlinemetals.com/replace-that-rusty-barrel-on-your-old-turkey-rifle-with-a-piece-of-4130-round-tube/
Came across it a while back in my interweb meanderings
-
Nice idea, but seamless tubing is NOT always seamless. On rare occasion there can be a rather deep, long crack on the inside of that tube.
I don't believe it matters much what grade of steel is involved.
My relevant personal experience is some heavy-walled 1018 tubing a friend was turning down for a pistol barrel. He stopped when he saw machine oil weeping out of a long crack. The crack began on the inside. Kinda hard to see...
Work experience was the same type of crack in two seamless heat resistant alloy pipes. The first being type 310 - think Stainless on Steroids (25%chromium 20% nickel). The second was a proprietary heat resistant alloy, also lots of chromium & nickel.
Onlinemetals should know better. Betcha Daddy Company ThyssenKrupp does. Perhaps I might drop them a word.
-
From my readings before this thread I assumed "seemless" tubing was not a very good idea, I just find it perplexing why online metals (which seems to have a following of loyal clients) would suggest the idea. I realize it is only more material they are trying to sell. But being a manufacturer or distributer you would think they would be more cautious or worried about potential liability. The link I posted seems rather light hearted and care free, as though no troubles could arise, and there is no regard to safety precautions or measure to be taken working with and using said material as a muzzle loader barrel. It kind of worries me to think someone might just take that blog posting for granted and assume DOM is just fine without doing adequate research. I'm not suggesting or advocating anything in the link I posted, I just remembered coming across it and thought I'd let you more knowledgeable folk chew on it here...
-
Kelly.
About 15 years ago I made a real nice pistol barrel out of a piece seamless tubing. Everything looked great until the final polish. When I got down to the 1000 grit there were a lot of small scratches I couldn't get out . After a while Out of desperation I decided to check it out under a microscope. To my surprise there were dozens of small cracks all over the surface. That scared the heck out of me. That was the end of my making barrels out of it. I fixed that piece so it could never be used for a barrel. Before that I had made some very good barrels out of Shelby seamless tubing.
Everything I did was proofed by English black powder proof specs. Another friend of mine , now deceased, made a blunderbuss barrel out of a piece of the same thing. He went to proof it and it exploded the first shot with a standard 12 ga. load of 3 drams ffg goex.
-
This company tests gun barrels http://chesapeaketesting.com/services/gun-barrel-mapping/
-
I think these fellas might be testing Guns just a tad larger than this forum covers.
-
I think these fellas might be testing Guns just a tad larger than this forum covers.
Chesapeake Testing currently offers customers scanning services utilizing the BEMIS-SC™ for small caliber weapons. The BEMIS-SC™ is intended for .22 to .50-cal. barrels.
APPLICATIONS OF THIS TECHNOLOGY INCLUDE:
- Barrel erosion/endurance – characterize liners, barrel quality after a number of rounds have been fired to track wear and erosion.
- Quality assurance/control – inspection of new barrels by manufacturers and end-users to characterize manufacturing quality and compare different barrels.
- Barrel certification/re-certification – inspect fielded weapon systems, report wear and dimensional variance over time in order to better predict barrel lifetime.
-
If you look through the pictures they do have one of some type of flint pistol...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/chesapeaketestingxct/albums
-
If you look through the pictures they do have one of some type of flint pistol...
Unfortunately the "flintlock pistol" they picture is labeled "die cast toy".
-Ron
-
(https://i.ibb.co/7nwsmsG/image.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Vg7f4fv)
Please note the pressure generated by a .54 caliber round ball in a slower twist barrel. Round balls don't produce the pressures everyone thinks when loaded correctly. This is from the Lyman manual.
-
Now note the pressure of a conical from a faster rate of twist. The round ball load was fffg. The conical is ffg. Round balls have very little bearing surface in contact with the barrel compared to conicals or sabots(which are higher yet). You guys make your own opinions, but I don't have an issue with 12L14 barrels. I have had them made with both 12L14 and 4140. Neither give me pause.
(https://i.ibb.co/CK38zbN/image.jpg) (https://ibb.co/YBFQ3cY)
-
Now note the pressure of a conical from a faster rate of twist. The round ball load was fffg. The conical is ffg. Round balls have very little bearing surface in contact with the barrel compared to conicals or sabots(which are higher yet). You guys make your own opinions, but I don't have an issue with 12L14 barrels. I have had them made with both 12L14 and 4140. Neither give me pause.
(https://i.ibb.co/CK38zbN/image.jpg) (https://ibb.co/YBFQ3cY)
yes, yes, &* yeas, but note, this book was written in the dark ages (poor quality) of US powder production as well as the inferior ballistics of that C&H powder of that day. It is interesting, though.
I did chronograph my brother's "Voluptuous Virginia" .50 with 80gr. 2F and it's 42 bl. produce a disappointing 1,450fps, which is about 40fps less to what Lyman's book got for 30" and 3F G-0.
Their 32" got about 1,550fps with 80gr. 3F if you extrapolate between 80 and 90gr. numbers.
-
Sometimes barrel length can adversely affect velocity if there isn't sufficient powder to build pressure as the ball travels the entire length of the barrel. If the charge has burned completely before the ball reaches the muzzle, the extra length actually acts as resistance and slows the ball. With that length 90 grains may be the sweet spot. You want the charge to finish burning just as the ball reaches the muzzle.
-
I have grazed over this thread as I do many and it is very apparent that the majority of comments come from those who have little understanding of metallurgy nor economics and business.
Let us start with the fact that yield and tensile ratings for a given alloy are only benchmarks for comparison in static load states. In a state of dynamic loading listed yield and tensile strengths mean nothing as the key factor remains an extremely complex equation concerning the amount of change over a period of time and the metal's ability to accept those changes without work-hardening. The distinction of 86L20 comparing to 12L14 is a matter of placing a thumb in your ear as they are both very similar lead bearing alloys where again the yield and tensile difference mean little. Have you worked at all with mandated lead-free brass and seen how these alloys are plagued with rapid fatigue failure for the simple reason as the lead was removed for EPA reasons which are total nonsense. I find humorous the discussion of cold versus hot rolled when both can equally have induced stress and flaws detrimental to any application. Is it such a secret that all alloys are ordered according to their processing where cold or hot can be as-is, normalized, tempered or quenched? The preceding discussions are rather humorous as they prove the old saying that a little information applied wrongly is more dangerous than anything else. How much fright would reading the previous pages cause when people know that modern cartridge barrels are made with cold rolled alloy? But the difference is not how the shape is formed but the normalizing and tempering which follow the forming. I am curious to who gives pricing based on alloy when pricing difference is based mostly on post-production treatment, not the composition. I wonder how one can think a part can double or more in cost based on alloy when there is at most $8 per stick difference between 12L14, 1095 or 4150 and at 3 parts per stick makes $2.67 material cost difference per part. I am also confused over tooling costs when carbide costs maybe 50% more than HSS but produce three times as much work making for overall cost reduction.
I laugh out loud at person who say business need $1m liability insurance wondering if this person is still living in 18th century? No manufacture today can have less than $10m general liability + $25m product liability + $10 umbrella liability + incorporated to protect personal assets. Even still with all that there is the very possibility one would face government charge of criminal liability for bodily injury or destruction of property for which there is no insurance policy to purchase. So much has changed as I begin my 43'd year of machinery manufacturing and I see most people have not even the slightest understanding of the modern business environment.
-
Yeah!!! What he said.
;D ;D ;D sorry couldn't help it. Lol
-
Hi Helmut,
Thank you for your post and it does have some good information and food for thought but it would be received much better here without the "I know better than all of you and can't believe how dumb you are" attitude. I urge you to just present your information and facts and leave it at that. The attitude is best left hidden.
dave
-
I did not mean anything disparaging as Mr. Boone said in the message or that anyone is dumb. Perhaps my English writing still lacks capturing my feelings. I just found the conjecture and speculation on previous pages humorous and want to inform those that what was suggested is not so in metallurgy or business. If I offend anyone, I apologize as it was not my intent.
-
Hi Helmut,
Understood and thank you for your response. You have a lot of experience and valuable information to share and please keep it up.
We can all benefit from it.
dave
-
I have made barrels out of 12L14 to 1018 hot rolled to wrought iron. Hope the fellow who started this post is satisfied with its results. I don,t think I would be.