How about stepping into the 21st century?
A quick search provides*:
British
Rules of proof require rifles to be proved with a load that produces not less than 130%, and not more than 145%, of the peak mean operating pressure of the normal load.
Germany
The average value of the gas pressure of the proof ammunition must exceed the permissible maximum value of the gas pressure of the regular ammunition (Pmax) based on the listings in measure boards, the average value of the gas pressure of the proof charge or the test mixture the permissible maximum value of the regular charge or the regular mixture, by at least 30%.
If the kinetic energy of the bullets is to be taken as a basis in place of the gas pressure, then the average value of the kinetic energy of the bullets of the proof ammunition must exceed the permissible maximum value of the kinetic energy of the bullets of the regular ammunition Emax based on the listings in measure boards, the average value of the kinetic energy of the proof charge or the test mixture the permissible maximum value of the regular charge or the regular mixture around at least by 10% using a very similar propellant.
If the necessary energy cannot be achieved with the ammunition, the charge or the mixture, that is available, then a projectile is to be used, which weight is at least 10% higher than those of the regular projectiles while maintaining the same propellant."
Spain
Consecutive firing of one initial charge to exceed service operating pressure by not less than 35% nor more than 40%; two loads exceeding the service operating charge by not less than 20% nor more than 25% and two standard service loads.
Italy
Proof test pressure is 30% stronger than the maximum pressure of a commercial cartridge or maximum allowable service pressure (Pmax.) Pmax pressures are measured in BAR units.
* Disclaimer. Information obtain via internet and should thus be verified by alternative sources however, the quoted sources appear to be reasonably reliable and considering the similarities, one can conclude the information is reasonably accurate.
Several descriptions of the proof process include references to pre/post test visual inspection; detailed highly accurate measurements taken both externally and internally. One single-source reference exists to CIP proof standard for closed-breech black powder guns having a smooth or scribed bore, that being a single load consisting of 150% powder charge and 125% projectile mass followed by two charges consisting of 120% powder charge and 100% projectile mass. Another single-source claims the use of exterior laser measurement during the test firing.
Dan...
So one cannot paint all iron barrels with the same brush anymore than one can do the same thing with all steel barrels.
If that's the case, why do
you constantly do it time after time?
...There were and are ML arms that people shot/shoot upwards of 120 grains of powder and 3 caliber or longer bullets for 1000 yard competition. BUT. They don't carry them around hunting so the bullet can move, they (hopefully) don't have free machining leaded steel barrels
Again, changing the topic because you refuse to answer the questions and again you paint with a broad brush without rhyme nor reason. What bullets are those that slide off the powder? Perhaps the too-small bullets not properly fit to the bore? Should one not have enough common sense to understand that if the bullet is not properly fit to the bore it poses a problem? Using the wrong components is in the same class as the guy who fired a 6mmBR in a .223WSM chamber ... that's not fault of anything other than operator error so what's your point? There must be some point to this because you keep rambling about stupidity but never make a valid fact-based argument. Not that you would let facts get in the way of agenda but a properly sized and loaded conical bullet will stay in place even when the barrel rides in the pick-up truck for two weeks with the muzzle facing down resting on the floorboard (that's about 300 miles worth of Pennsylvania pot holes and coal mine roads). It's just a shame you weren't around to tell all them buffalo hunters how conical bullets couldn't possible work ... perhaps if you could have supplied them with your 16-bore PRB's the they may have been able to nearly cause the extinction of US the buffalo?
So I am not out in fantasy land. While its not a scientific lab test its still useful information that does not require referring to cranes and rock boxes.
Again, change the subject rather than answer the question. Following your grossly flawed lack of logic, the basis of the question lies with the method you present as an alleged "test". Engineers go through great pains to create LEGITIMATE testing procedures for such things as cranes because conducting a test that has the potential to make the assembly unsafe is, well, unsafe and nothing more than pure stupidity. One does not test a 200 ton crane by shock loading it with a 400 ton load ... the logic is flawed just the same as intentionally overloading a gun barrel to the point where it has the potential to damage an otherwise safe assembly. The only problem here Dan is your lack of capacity to understand the difference between "destructive testing" and "non-destructive testing".
"Provisional Proof" was done with the barrel in the UNFINISHED condition - no rifling, no profile - that would equate to proofing a "drilled blank" which doesn't matter for a drop of snot when everything changes after the remaining machining is done . No surprise that you chose to avoid answering my question as to why you would intentionally run a potentially damaging load in a barrel without consideration of proper measurement nor the reality of creating the condition where the barrel could fail with a normal charge at some future date. It's not a matter of being "frightened" it's a matter of common sense via the application of reasonable procedures that would not potentially create unnecessary safety issues. If you're not conducting anything more than a "it didn't blow-up this time" test, why even bother at all? By NOT following proper, or at least somewhat proper, test procedures, you're accomplishing nothing - just how well is your "tight patch" calibrated? That's got to be one helluva patch to measure more accurately than a 0.0001" micrometer!
Anything is possible but its easy to let yourself slip farther from reality in doing this so you might want to stay closer to fact than fantasy to bolster your position. The crane/welding truck frame thing gets pretty far from firearms applications. Fortunately we don't weld on gun barrels, at least I hope not.
So let's discuss that "bolstering your position" thing. In one post you claim a percussion drum blew through your door because it was "manufactured wrong because there was a rebated area behind the threads and that it was made from brittle cold-rolled steel" ... in another post, you claim the same drum blew-out because "I didn't have it supported by the lock plate" - so what really caused that drum to blow out?
While we're on the "bolstering your position" thing ... you babbled on and on about "obtaining a seal at the breech face yet when confronted with the fact that such is impossible by a man who works with extreme pressure and temperature containment for a living, you completely ignored the facts by choosing to go way off-topic just as you've done in this post and numerous others. Same breechplug topic, in one post you claim that you would "never" install a vent liner that interrupts the breech threads/face then in several other posts you brag about using a cupped breech face and installing the liner right through the breech threads while making the unsubstantiated claim that the latter is "the strongest breech". What documentation can you provide to back up that claim? I mean considering that it is proven fact that the first three threads of a threaded connection carry 73% of the total load, obviously you have some sort of paperwork from a pressure vessel testing facility to substantiate your claim that the breech strength is increased by drilling a hole though the breech threads.
Most were from people shooting Maxi-balls in Wal-mart specials and even cheaper copies of Wal-Mart specials.
Well Dan, if you go back to the mid-70's/early 80's time frame you'll find a test done, featured in a gun rag, where they took a CVA and I believe a T/C possibly a third barrel and put them to destructive testing. IIRC, none of them blew with charges of like 600gr of powder and 1000gr of lead. That's besides the point, you're the only one talking about Wal-Mart guns ... as usual, you choose to avoid the real issues and go off on a tangent about something completely different.
Let's go back to the fantasy land thing...
Dphariss:
October 28, 2008 - Barrel length and velocity??
"BP and Smokeless are very much not the same thing. Some smokeless pistol cartridges will develop maximum pressure before the bullet gets much past the end of the cartridge case.[/b]"
Then a few months later you said:
Dphariss:
April 23, 2009 - Thoughts on "load inertia"
"Yes, I suppose that certain smokeless powders will reliably "bump up" bullets. I just don't know of any.[/b]"
So what's the real story Dan? In Oct of 2008 you absolutely attested that smokeless loads generate maximum pressure before the bullet clears the cartridge case but in April of 2009 you claim "I don't know of any." and then go on to claim that black powder bumps the bullet up much faster than smokeless.
As for your comments on "cold rolled", perhaps you would be well served learning a bit about steel production. Those old Buick bumpers don't go into a pile then get rolled out, the melt comes from the furnace and gets hot-rolled into large ingots. The large ingots are then re-heated and hot-cut and hot-rolled into structural shapes or billet blanks. Billet blanks then get re-heated and hot-rolled again to reduce their size for smaller structural shapes, sheet stock and cold forming blanks. Thus your "cold-rolled" alloy goes through 3 or more hot-rollings before even getting to the cold-roll forming stage. At that point there's two types of material, "certified alloy" and "non-certified", the certified goes on to become "certified alloy stock" and the non-certified goes on to become all the junk that doesn't require the use of a certified alloy. Thus, your theory about "inclusions" coming from the cold-rolling process are totally unfounded because the process changes the shape, not the composition of the alloy. Besides, if heat-treating cannot change the properties of the finished product from cold-rolling as you claim, why is it that the majority of "hot-rolled" is no longer "rolled" but rather die-drawn ... a process that imparts a lot of stress into the finished stock which is why it all goes through post-forming heat-treatment just like cold-rolled does. Of course, that's not a detailed description of the process but enough of Cliff Notes version to get the point across. BTW, when it comes to "certified alloy", there different levels of certification; one is for the alloy composition alone; another is for the composition and billet processing; others go on to certify the entire process from first-melt to finished stock and this full-certification includes random testing throughout the mfg process to certify the entire mfg process.
See Dan, I don't have to "grasp at straws" because it is not I who created this mess, you alone have dug the hole your standing in. Go ahead and laugh because we're all laughing too ... especially about your "calibrated cleaning patch". You would make a great politician. I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything but at least when I mis-speak or make a mistake, I'll own up to it rather than try to twist the conversation off onto to some irrelevant tangent. I've tried to play nice Dan but for some reason you project a lot of anger towards me. Not sure what caused that, I try to have a civil fact-based discussion but you choose to turn things into a personal attack be it here or on other forums and quite frankly, I don't care if you like me or not because that's irrelevant to the topic at hand. You make claims like the wind blows from all four points of the compass yet when someone calls you to defend your position, you go off on an irrelevant tangent to avoid confronting reality or resort to personal attacks. You don't have to like me Dan and I'm sure you're going to like me less now because I've dared to call you on your BS. Well so be it. I don't hold grudges anymore, I don't have time for that $#@*. I'll pray for you brother.
Have a better look at the barrel, it's parkerized or some type of matt-finished steel, not stainless.
And a couple more...
