But I wonder if we can honestly say if they are of tubing or not.
.
They are advertised as being made of tubing & even give the tensile strength - the number I cannot remember - which is strange hmmmmmmm - nope- gone. Tensile strength is only one factor of suitability in barrel steel, of course. Now, I can remember correctly if it was tensile strength or shear strength- probably tensile.
Yeah they were actually BRAGGING about the tubing at one time.
Would have to search the sites to see if this has changed, not worth it.
If its gone I assume they found out that tubing was a really stupid choice for gun barrels. But that does not mean they stopped using it.
To expound somewhat... Sorry about the "modern" content.
The strength of the steel is only valid IF the material used has the PROPER CHARACTERISTICS. Modern steels are generally designed for some specific purpose and this may well make them unsuitable for other uses to some greater to lesser extent regardless of how strong they might seem.
The problems Remington had a few years back and the problems with some modern stainless steels used for barrels prove that STRENGTH is irrelevant since most modern steels have the NUMBERS.
BUT the material must tough, not brittle, it must have good "hoop strength", resistance to internal pressure, and in the case of thin wall barrels, like shotguns especially, it must not work harden. Also note that a steel that is very tough in one application can be very brittle and weak in a gun barrel. Brittleness in a gun barrel means it can break at a pressure far below its paper strength numbers. Firearms barrels must not be shock sensitive since the loading its applied at a rapid rate. The pressure rise is steep. Rapid loading WEAKENS the material regardless of its "tensile" or "yield", brittle or shock sensitive steels are prone to failure. So its possible to burst a barrel at a pressure level well under the paper numbers. The faster the pressures rise the easier it is to break the material. This is how it is possible to "cut" steel with an HE like C-4. The pressure rise is so rapid (burn rate in excess of 20000 fps) that the steel simply breaks. While its impossible for BP to detonate under the right conditions smokeless powder can it would seem.
There are a whole range of reasons why for carbon steel barrels 4140/4150 is the best choice. But even this must be HIGH QUALITY STEEL. Making high quality steel encompasses the entire process from materials used to the final rolling. Thus gun barrel and better steels are made in specific batches just for the quality level needed. So to get the mill to make a run of high quality steel the order must constitute enough steel to constitute a batch for the given mill. Gun barrel steels must be HOT ROLLED. Cold rolled steels are intentionally made brittle in the final processes of manufacture so they machine easily, they often contain various metals to lubricate the cut. These tend to form inclusions in the steel. Being brittle by design no matter the quality they are not suitable for barrels. The quality level indicates the level of inclusions and flaws allowable in a bar. Bars of high quality steel are stamped with the quality level. The ones I have seen were stamped GB for "Gun Barrel". Also small lots of GB quality steel are very difficult to obtain and some big name "modern" custom barrel makers must pool orders to get steel or find someone with some in stock they will sell (good luck).
As an aside GB quality 1137 even in cartridge guns like 45-70 or 45-120 will withstand massive overloads of the faster grades of IMR powder with no apparent ill effects but its it not considered adequate for cartridge gun barrels by some experienced in the field. In some cases the people holding the loans will not allow it. Thus carbon steel breech loader barrels are made of one of the two 41xx alloys mentioned at least SFAIK. Many standard pressure 38 special, 38 S&W, 45 ACP barrels were made of mild steel and in the case of 45 ACP might still be in some cases. But load a +P or P++ in a soft barreled 38 special and there WILL be problems, often the thin forcing cone of the barrel and/or the cylinder is bulged or blown etc etc.
The post that started this thread indicates part of the problem. It is very difficult to blow up a modern steel barrel with BP. It is near impossible to blow a modern rifle that operates at 55000-60000+ with a 4140 barrel without a bore obstruction. Some really significant abuse has to occur OR an UNDERLOAD condition with smokeless powder. Barrel steels other than 4140/4150 are not as reliable; there have been problems with stainless guns from several makers.
Yeah, its counter intuitive but UNDERLOADS of smokeless are a prime cause of blown modern guns. Especially 357 mag revolvers. It has to do with the ignition of the charge. Poorly ignited smokeless sometimes converts to an HE. This has occurred with reduced loads of powders like 4831 in large magnum cases, it has happened in straight cases with low density loading of IMR powders 3031 is the one I have had experiences with. Unique in rifle loads is very risky and low density loads in revolvers are poison. BTW its poison for field pieces too, been tested, a friend was told by a scientist at one of the Gov't testing ranges that they blew a 250 pound breech block 1/2 a mile with a reduced load of the normal powder.
Interestingly enough Dupont and Phil Sharpe both knew of this in the 1930s and Sharpe wrote it up. But we have to relearn things all the time it seems.
In the BP world we have no ignition related problems or true detonation. BP is so forgiving that almost anything, wrought iron, mild steel etc will contain the pressure. Unless it doesn't. Then there is a problem. But the nature of MLing immediately throws suspicion on the LOADER. Handloading exempts the maker from liability, but the moderns have something the ML maker need not contend with, factory loaded ammo. Thus the ML maker can, if they wish, use almost anything they want for barrel steel with impunity. They can take a barrel as was done in the initiating post and load it to ridiculous levels and it will survive. Thus the court system assumes the shooter is at fault. Back many years ago people had taken 1861 rifle musket barrels, skelp welded and rolled high quality wrought iron (superior to some modern steels for the purpose BTW) and loaded them completely full of powder and they held. This "proved" than a ML could not be blown up. So this overload thing is really meaningless. It will only detect gross flaws it does not mean the barrel will never fail though being made of the proper material of the proper grade reduces the chance of any *barrel* failure after proof . The 1861 (etc) Springfield’s were well proofed before accepted for service.
A major ML maker years ago, 1970s/80s, had a rash of blowups (a Finnish maker of "moderns" just had a similar problem that considering the other events I have read about is surely material related) through creative chemistry the maker's lawyers "proved" that smokeless was used. The chemical test of the fouling was absolute. It proved that nitro was present. Case closed. Except a friend of mine with a chemical bent did the same test with fouling from BP right from the can and got the SAME RESULT "smokeless present". The plaintiff’s lawyers dropped the ball. The blowups also stopped. It was thought that the barrel steel was changed and/or they had gotten a bad lot of steel. I think the barrel steel changed but do not know this as fact. I am sure the people buying the things did not suddenly become enlightened and quit making loading errors.
There is a large amount of smoke and mirrors involved in ML gun barrels, less so with the moderns. Sometimes makers like Remington get their feet put to the fire. They used a steel that was strong enough but this alloy work hardened and broke. People got hurt. Remington lost in court it was unfortunate all the way around.
There are people in the ML community that have been injured to a greater or lesser extent by barrel failures. Everyone assumes it’s the loaders fault, since "you can't blow up a properly loaded barrel".
The lab results from the blown up (with an unwadded blank charge) Indian made musket in the recent past was ludicrous. In reading it I lost all faith in the lab that did it. It was an OBVIOUS "we paid you to find what we want" finding that was an obvious case of prostitution by typewriter. It read like no other blow up report I have ever seen. No analysis of the material at all. No analysis of the fracture. Just that it was caused by a bore obstruction when no bore obstruction was possible. So it was the shooters fault. But it was paid for by the maker not the owner. So the ML community got white wash not facts.
Frightening imported ML firearms are nothing new. If you read W. Greener for 1835 he was complaining about the poor quality of export barrels/guns at that time. These were going to Africa, NA and probably elsewhere at the time. From the advent of increased interest in MLs from the late 50s on all sorts of junk has come in from various places. A gunsmith here in town back about 1975 had a guy bring him an import percussion gun because it would not fire reliably. The drum in this case is kind of snail shaped but still a drum screwed into the barrel. In examining the gun he turned the drum 1/4 turn and it FELL OUT of the barrel. Yet the guy had been shooting it. Scary part is there are STILL thousands of these out there with various name brands. They sold for 90-120 bucks IIRC. People bought/buy them for their kids
Then there were the things that had the 2 piece barrels in which the bore sometime was a little "off" at the joint. But they were capable of being fired. Probably some of these still out there as well. If I see some such I avoid them as I would a Rattlesnake.
But not all imports are junk. The better Italian made guns are really pretty good and I consider them safe to shoot and equal or perhaps superior to some American made factory or even custom guns.
Dan
