Modern steel gun barrels

[FRJ]

OK newbie gonna stick his foot in his mouth again!!! Question is, since octagon barrels are available for modern calibers why can't they be used for muzzle loaders? There are always warnings not to use modern smokeless powders in replica or repro firearms so if a person used modern barrels in BP configuration wouldnt' that solve the Problem. Or is it because that a safe load of bp, say 120gr ff might not be safe if the person used 120gr of smokeless and the steel isn't the problem at all. Frank

[Stormrider51]

You could, if you found one in a caliber you want with a rifling twist rate that works.  Most modern barrels have far too fast a twist.  There's also a matter of expense.  Why pay for a barrel that will handle smokless pressures when BP will never come close?  And finally, you still couldn't use smokless in a traditional BP gun regardless of the barrel.  A trad muzzleloader is an OPEN system, meaning that burning gasses always have a direct route to the outside either through the vent or nipple.  Whichever of those two is on your muzzleloader is also very near your face.  I've seen a combination of a large BP charge coupled with a worn nipple cause the hammer to be blown back to half-cock.  I've got a friend with a permanent "tattoo" on his cheek as proof.  Like I said, you could use a barrel rated for smokless but why bother?

John

[camerl2009]

the problem with smokeless powder muzzleloaders is smokeless is only weighed on a scale and you use less of it

the big problem is when some one trys to use a blackpowder measure to measure smokeless ive seen what happend to a savage smokeless muzzleloader when some one did just that  lets say he way lucky to walk away

BP subs are volume measured only(BP subs are lighter then real BP but there a volume powder so when its used at the same volume as real BP its ok)

real BP can be weighed on a scale or measured by volume

and modern barrels have fast twist too fast for round ball

now i have been looking at this my self with a .45-70 barrel for .45-70 slugs and i do use a modern  mossberg 12ga barrels on my turkey flintlock

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Here's the straight goods...muzzle loading guns use BLACK POWDER.  NOT REPLICA BP EITHER!!  You don't put gasoline in a diesel engine. 

[Glenn]

Here's the straight goods...muzzle loading guns use BLACK POWDER.  NOT REPLICA BP EITHER!!  You don't put gasoline in a diesel engine. 

That's a great analogy .... THANK YOU !!!  

[T*O*F]

Frank,
There are exceptions to everything.  Cartridge barrels have very shallow rifling because they shoot an over bore size projectile which is engraved into the rifling on ignition.  They are unsuitable for patched roundballs because they are prone to stripping the patch with heavier loads.

However, for the long range muzzleloading game, cartridge barrels by Badger, Kreiger, and Shilen are the norm precisely because of their strength.  A .45 caliber bullet weighing 530-580 grains behind a charge of 105 grains of Swiss 3f by weight generates tremendous breech pressure.  The bullets are bore sized with either grease grooves or paper patched.  They bump up on ignition to engrave themselves into the rifling.  A 12L14 barrel would come apart like a hand grenade with these loads.  Further, the nipples don't blow out on these guns because they aren't in direct contact with the flash channel.  Instead, they screw into a seat in the breech which has a small hole thru the center, and steel between the flash channel and the nipple.

Everything has it's purpose depending on what game you're playing and there are numerous disciplines within the broad field of muzzleloading.

[Steve-In]

The two powders are not even similar.  Black powder explodes and has a quick sharp pressure curve.  It is rather low.  Smokeless burns and the more pressure it is under, the more it generates for a longer period of time.  A muzzleloader barrel has a bolt for a plug surrounded by barrel.  A smokeless gun has a barrel surrounded by more steel, the plug (cartridge case ) is held in place by the breech.  The case grips the chamber walls increasing the pressure the firearm can handle.  Even the modern MLs do not have this additional boost plus they lack locking lugs in most cases.  So a long way to get there but the steel alone is not what makes a breechloader capable of handling smokeless powder.  Muzzle loading barrels do not need to be made from the tougher to machine 4140's and other barrel steels to be safe.

[alsask]

Some muzzleloading barrels are chrome-moly.  There are a lot of smokeless rifles that are not chrome-moly.

[camerl2009]

Here's the straight goods...muzzle loading guns use BLACK POWDER.  NOT REPLICA BP EITHER!!  You don't put gasoline in a diesel engine.  

subs are the worst thay rust way too fast (i had it rust in minutes down here in far southern ont where in the summer its really humid) i never used them in a firearm again that was hard to clean up

[JCKelly]

The oldest and most popular "sub" uses potassium perchlorate (rather than, or in addition to, potassium nitrate) as the energizer/source of oxygen.

Perchlorates, and chlorates, are corrosive as $#*!.

That is why most modern primers make a point of saying "non-corrosive", because they don't use chlorates.

(Russian ammo used to be an exception, as those nasty chlorate-based primers detonate no matter what the climate & the Russian army had the wierd idea their ammo should work anywhere on earth. They chrome plate their rifle bores, I think to help survive the chlorate corrosion)

There is something like seven centuries of experience with gunpowder made of potassium nitrate (saltpeter), wood charcoal and sulfur. Maybe 30-40 years with that "sub".

[Captchee]

Here's the straight goods...muzzle loading guns use BLACK POWDER.  NOT REPLICA BP EITHER!!  You don't put gasoline in a diesel engine. 

  

 past that and to the question .
 Let me also say that  im kind of leery of discussing this here as  I don’t think  the topic actually fits  what this  forum  or organization is all about .

  Barrel steels have changed a lot through the years .  One of the reasons for that is that   barrels had to stay up with the performance of the powders . When it comes to smokeless , you have to know what your buying  . What Cal your buying it for .   You don’t just go buy a powder off the shelf , weigh it out and load it into a shell .
 If you do you can blow up a modern barrel just as easy as  you can by loading smokeless into a muzzleloader.
Also as was mentioned  BP is  measured by volume not weight.

 I disagree with the  thought that BP cannot reach pressures  of some smokeless . It in fact can   given the right environment.  But we also have to keep this in some context . So if we are saying that  BP wont produce the same  pressures  applied to the same amount  in the same bore/ cal  while backing the same projectile , then yes this is true .
Whats also true  and im sure is in the mind of the  person posting this question .
Some smokeless powders can be reduced  to provide pressures  in the normal BP performance range . But the problem , just as is being now seem in the smokeless designed
Market, people being what people are , they want to constantly push the envelope and thus don’t continue to follow  what they have been told . Thus in a very short time they exceed the design applications . If one doubts this , all they have to do is   take a look at the number of folks already using  different smokeless powders  in the modern designed smokeless muzzle loading guns,  instead of sticking to what the manufacture  has stated they need to use . Thus its IMO only a mater of time before  things start to happen . Those  designing these guns will end up  being the ones catching the flack .    

 The other issue is not one of the type of breech , but the breech design itself .
 The internal breeching like we  use for BP  is being used  with success . but again what is different is the design of the breech . The breech is also easily removable and regularly replaced . It has to be because  of the increased effects of gas cutting found with the application of  smokeless powders  

 Then we step back to the action . A side lock just isn’t strong enough to  withstand the pressures  that it would or potentially could  encounter. This is why  the applications designed for smokeless , use a bolt with at least 1 locking lug  even though   the rifle is using  an eternal breech  with either a nipple or a  casing  type  ignition . In fact if you  research these designs to there base , you find a double locking lug as part of the original design . The removal of that 2nd lug  for the marketed design  most times is part of  fulfilling a regulation  

As to  the projectile being engraved . This application has little to do with the powder and more to do with the application of the cartridge and the desired accuracy of that application  .
Again if  we take some time and look at whats  marketed today  we will see  that the smokeless guns in the muzzle loading market  are not using paper patches or  false muzzles to load the projectile  and they are getting high accuracy .

 Now  with the above being said , I would not recommend   trying to apply a smokeless powder in the application of the guns found on this forum . If you do  you asking for  big issues  and trip to the hospital or funeral chapel. Be use using a modern barrel  capable  of pressures of smokeless or not  is not the only consideration one needs to take into account .
      

[Dphariss]

OK newbie gonna stick his foot in his mouth again!!! Question is, since octagon barrels are available for modern calibers why can't they be used for muzzle loaders? There are always warnings not to use modern smokeless powders in replica or repro firearms so if a person used modern barrels in BP configuration wouldnt' that solve the Problem. Or is it because that a safe load of bp, say 120gr ff might not be safe if the person used 120gr of smokeless and the steel isn't the problem at all. Frank

.
To be honest I think you are in the wrong forum for this question.
I believe Savage was making a "smokeless powder ML" for awhile. ML 10?
But since they are excessively prone to unfortunate "events" SFAIK they no longer doing this.
Smokeless can be VERY finicky about ignition and it really does not like being poorly lit off. This sometimes results in it reverting to its high explosive "roots" and this is not something that is desirable in firearms regardless of material it will fail.

I shoot smokeless quite often but in MODERN MADE CARTRIDGE FIREARMS where it belongs.

Dan

[Daryl]

Good stuff - well, most of it. Like Captchee noted - people being what they are!!  Reminds me of a site I visited then left.  The BP shooters were mostly Pyrodex/T-7 shooters, who shot mostly inlines and were all bragging about how much IMR4350 they were using in their Savages with jacketed bullets with various sabots. One of the 'local' experts noted he was using 85gr. of it.  They talked about ignition problems and what 'primrs' so use to stop handfires. As Dan noted, these powders do not like to be partically ignited as they then can manifest themselves into detonations - I left the site after reading that person's post, in that thread.  Detonations turn rifles into grenades.

Track has heavy and lighter GM fast twist ctg. barrels to 35" length in tapered octabonal that will work for a slug gun, and some heavy Winchester taper 50cal. with original-type ridiculously slow 56" twists that might work for a round ball, however they have shallow 'bullet-style' rifling and therfore no advantage for round balls and not really suitable.  The  cost, unchambered is over $250.00 now - at least that's what my 18" twist bl. was.  I put one of these GM Winchester taper fast twist .45 ctg. barrels on my Sharps - it now weighs 12 1/2 pounds. Depends on what you're looking for, I guess.  It has a 1.2" breech tapered to a 1" muzzle - 35" long.

Oh yeah - it shoots sub 1" @ 100metrs with iron sights, & either BP or smokeless with heavy bullets. Probably make a good slug gun - not for round balls & a bit heavy for a hunting rifle in this day and age (where we are weaker than our ancestors apparently were).

[FRJ]

Let me refrase the question: Why don't ML barrel makers use the same steel in their barrels that center fire smokeless barrel makers use in theirs?

[T*O*F]

Why don't ML barrel makers use the same steel in their barrels that center fire smokeless barrel makers use in theirs?

It's too expensive.  Centerfire barrel makers have more production in one day than most ML barrel makers have in a year.  Certified gun steel must be purchased in large quantities beyond the financial means of the small barrel maker.

[Daryl]

I hadn't even thought of cost.  Are there any muzzleloading barrel makers who drill their own barrels from bar stock, besides GM?  Would their drilling, reaming, rifling & stress-relieving equipment handle the tougher high pressure barrel steels?  Prices would certainly go up, although you can buy a high quality, match-grade modern barrel, contoured, rifled and hand lapped for $250.00 that needs no outside work as in filing or polishing prior to bluing.

[Dphariss]

Let me refrase the question: Why don't ML barrel makers use the same steel in their barrels that center fire smokeless barrel makers use in theirs?

Boy did you open a can of worms.

Some ML barrel makers use better steels, Jim McLemore for example uses 4150.

Below is  letter from LaSalle  steel from 30 odd  years ago and nothing has changed in regard to the facts presented.


This appeared in the Nov 1981 issue of the Buckskin Report.
Anyone interested should attempt to find issues from Sept 81 (James Kelly's "Tough and Brittle" article) to late 82 and possibly on into 1983 there is an ongoing discussion giving all sides of the controversy. Comments by the ASSRA officers concerning burst cold rolled barrels used on SS rifles. etc etc.
One other thing, various cold rolled steels are easy to get from just about any steel supplier. Gun Barrel certified 4150 (or any other high quality alloy) is much harder to obtain, its only made on order so there is no excess laying around, since its made in large batches with tight quality control so its more expensive.
Small quantity users have to pool with others to get the tonnage up to buy an entire run. Or buy from someone who has 10000 or 20000 pounds more than they need. It can be done, but its harder to cut, tool life is reduced and it takes more work and skill to cut to a good finish than cold rolled free machining steels.
Dan

[huntinguy]

I would hope that ML barrel makers would get, at least, an x-rayed or magnafluxed grade of steel for their barrels. I have machined lots of 4340, 4140 and 4130 (and heat treated it as well) and have seen cracks that were in the steel from the manufacture that did not show up until the material was worked. Those were so called "aircraft" grade.

Part of the reason of barrel steel selection is cost of manufacturing and the tooling required. The higher grade modern steels are often drilled with carbide gun drills on machines that spin both the barrel and drill using several hundreds of pounds of coolant pressure.

Just to give an example of shallow drilling. I have machined gear blanks that were drilled 8 inches deep and around .6 diameters. With high speed drills we were lucky to get 10 parts from one drill, we could easily get 25 or 30 parts with short carbide gun drills with 150 lbs of coolant pressure in almost the same amount of time. . The gun drilling machine would use 500 lbs of coolant pressure with the same drill and get in the neighborhood of 100 parts.

[Dphariss]

I would hope that ML barrel makers would get, at least, an x-rayed or magnafluxed grade of steel for their barrels. I have machined lots of 4340, 4140 and 4130 (and heat treated it as well) and have seen cracks that were in the steel from the manufacture that did not show up until the material was worked. Those were so called "aircraft" grade.

Part of the reason of barrel steel selection is cost of manufacturing and the tooling required. The higher grade modern steels are often drilled with carbide gun drills on machines that spin both the barrel and drill using several hundreds of pounds of coolant pressure.

Just to give an example of shallow drilling. I have machined gear blanks that were drilled 8 inches deep and around .6 diameters. With high speed drills we were lucky to get 10 parts from one drill, we could easily get 25 or 30 parts with short carbide gun drills with 150 lbs of coolant pressure in almost the same amount of time. . The gun drilling machine would use 500 lbs of coolant pressure with the same drill and get in the neighborhood of 100 parts.

Cost is part of the reason its not all magnafluxed etc. Years ago a ML maker had a lot of barrels fail and they then claimed that they were magnafluxing or some such. They may have simply changed material but could not state this for liability reasons. I am sure, personally, that they were leaded screw stock. If they were using Douglas or Montana made ML barrels.
But proofing will, or should find any gross flaws. That is the purpose. Button rifling finds them without the proof. But proofing or buttoning will not "proof" against bad material.

Certified steel of a certain grade is not flaw free but is supposed to have a limited number of flaws and inclusions.
I do know that when using Gun Barrel quality (a step down from Aircraft if I am properly informed) in a button rifling situation that the failure rate is very low. I also know that it is very high when "Stress Proof" is used. So there is a difference.
If AC quality is supposed to better than GB quality and there were very many flaws I would wonder if maybe the supplier was selling some lower grade stuff as AC. Stranger things have happened.

I found this pretty interesting concerning material selection and the fact that steel is was bought in 100 ton lots confirms what I have heard from other sources. Its hard or a small barrel maker to order 100 tons of material.
http://www.icehouse.net/fgrig/gun/Edsmetal.htm
Dan

[SPG]

"Why don't ML barrel makers use the same steel in their barrels that center fire smokeless barrel makers use in theirs?"

In my opinion, the short answer is- They should.

Steve