To proof or not to proof a barrel.

[Rolf]

When using barrels from quality makers like Rice, Ed Rayl, Colrain, Longhammock, etc, should the barrels be proofed? I didn't proof the pistol I made. Didn't think it was necessary. It had a standard Green Mountain barrel, 12" long, 15/16" diameter and cal54.

I did a search on "barrel proofing" and got a lot of conflicting views. What do the majority of builders do? Any recommendations from barrel makers like Rice or kit suppliers like Chambers?

Best regards

Rolfkt

[JCKelly]

Magnetic particle inspection is the best way to detect flaws (crack, seams) in these barrels.

A proof test may show if there is something wrong with the way the barrel was breeched. It will not reliably show whether or not a dangerous crack is present.

[gregg]

I'm no authority on this at all...but I've bought many T/C, GM, and Rice barrels...they are top quality products and when I buy them I expect and assume them to be as safe as the industry can provide.

Furthermore, I wouldn't know specifically what to use for a proof load...ie:
3 - 4 powder charges?  3 - 4 balls?
Then I'd worry that my "home-made proof loads" might have stressed the barrel to the very edge of its limits, thereby creating a potentially unsafe condition that didn't previously exist in the first place.

So for me, I leave that to the barrel manufacturers...haven't heard of any modern top quality barrels blowing up from normal use so far.

I'm no authority on this at all==That be me too. But I think your right.

[wvmtnman]

I personally see no need to proof a production barrel.  Having said that, I do have a tendency to fire the first shot out of a new rifle, from the hip with my head turned away.  Probably more superstitious than anything else.  I then check it over really well.
   The only modern ML barrel I have ever heard of blowing was a Douglas, back in the mid 1980's.  I was told that the shooter took apart a .45 cal pistol round and poured the powder down the barrel.  Smokless powder in a ML is a big no no.
                                                                                 Brian

[Dphariss]

I'm no authority on this at all...but I've bought many T/C, GM, and Rice barrels...they are top quality products and when I buy them I expect and assume them to be as safe as the industry can provide.

Furthermore, I wouldn't know specifically what to use for a proof load...ie:
3 - 4 powder charges?  3 - 4 balls?
Then I'd worry that my "home-made proof loads" might have stressed the barrel to the very edge of its limits, thereby creating a potentially unsafe condition that didn't previously exist in the first place.

So for me, I leave that to the barrel manufacturers...haven't heard of any modern top quality barrels blowing up from normal use so far.

Funny I have heard of modern made guns, ML or otherwise, blowing up in normal use, some of us have pictures. But its a topic nobody wants to talk about so it does not appear in the gun magazines etc etc. It is thought that a rash of failures in the 1970s resulted in a big name in mass produced MLs quietly changes barrel steels but this would never be made public since it would be an admission that they were selling inferior barrels previouis. In any event the blow ups stopped like they had flipped a switch.
How about modern guns CF blowing up? A highly respected European gun maker had a rash of blowups of stainless rifles with factory ammo. "Events" here and in Europe. At least one young shooter in Europe was severely injured, there was a recall, but written accounts are pretty rare, there is no watch dog group that publicizes this sort of thing and magazines don't want to offend advertisers. Concerning the blowups back in the 1970s (an later) there was almost nothing in Muzzle Blasts. So its necessary to LOOK pretty hard sometimes, at least since the demise of the old Buckskin Report.

If you want know about proof loads do the research and educate yourself. You can start with "The Gun and Its Development" by Greener.
I use a double service charge and a two patched balls. This does not mean double pressure but might be close but BP is har pressed to exceed 30000 even in cartridge guns with large charges and heavy bullets. This is well within the tolerance of suitable steels, many modern CFs run 65000+ for normal loads.
I have read that the relatively thin welded iron Springfield .58 Rifle Musket barrels of the Civil War were proved withn with 280 grains of Musket powder and a minie spaced 2" off the powder. Apparently the Minies tending to move off the powder was known by the 1850s.

I proof because I trust but verify. It is extremely unlikely a barrel will fail in proof but proving, NOW AS IN THE PAST, is intended to find FLAWS. A SOUND iron or steel barrel with sufficient wall thickness is not likely to fail at BP pressure levels unless there is a flaw OR the material is not suitable for gun barrels.

Proving also tests threaded attachments and should SOMEONE ELSE blow the gun up it gives me some defense that the gun was safe when it left my hands.

Dan

[gregg]

Buckskin Report... I remember and he payed a high price for telling the truth.

[Dphariss]

Buckskin Report... I remember and he payed a high price for telling the truth.

This why you don't see this sort of thing in magazines.
Magazines simply will not offend advertisers. They cannot and expect to survive.


Dan

[76 warlock]

What ever happened to John D Baird? I have a collection of Buckskin Reports and both of his Hawken books.

[whitebear]

The indians got him he cashed in his chips several years ago.

[Paddlefoot]

I believe Rice specifically states not to double charge and double ball their barrels on their website.

[California Kid]

76, John moved back to WV and passed there several years ago. I remember him flying into the 206 acres at Friendship years ago in a helicopter from Cin. airport. Boy, we used to have fun back then. Pete Allan should remember this as well. He used to cone over to the lodge at night to relax from all those pistol matches he used to win!

[whitebear]

What ever happened to John D Baird? I have a collection of Buckskin Reports and both of his Hawken books.

07-25-2006, 10:34 PM
This is a message that was forwarded to me today. I'm sure that more than a few of you old grey beards knew him. I knew John, rendezvous'ed with him over the years, and used to occassionally write for the magazine. I first met him in the mid '70's, at Twyman's Rendezvous, at Brunswick, Missouri.
I stopped in at the magazine office whenever I passed through Big Timber. He always talked about how busy he was in his editorials, but I never recall walking into his office,when he wasn't kicked back in his chair, with his feet up on the desk. Some of the old timers will remember the big hooraw some twenty years back ,when he started including BPCR in the magazine, and proclaimed he WAS the NAPR. All that is in the past, and some held hard feelings for many years about it. The way I see it, he did give the muzzleloading fraternity an exceptional resource in his magazine, and was instrumental in helping establish the Western National Mountain Man Rendezvous, that still exists, under the names of the Rocky Mountain Nationals, the High Plains Nationals, and several other offshoots.

Dear Friends;

I have just learned of the passing of John Baird on July 14, 2006. It was
his birthday. John was 78 years and 18 hours old. John published and
edited the BUCKSKIN REPORT magazine in the 1970s and 80s. His May 1978
article on my hunting pouches kick started my three decades of leather
working.

John was afflicted with Lewybodies, a form of dementia similar to
Alzheimers. Being the sort of man he was, as soon as the diagnoses was made
John planned out exactly how his business and personal life was to be
managed right up until the end. John left for his final rendezvous with no
strings untied.

Condolences may be sent to Mrs. John D.(Betty) Baird at 1902 Range Road,
Wadestown, West Virginia 26590. Telephone (304) 662-6220. Betty lives alone
there but her daughter lives nearby. I'll bet Betty would appreciate a
call. I don't have an email address.

There is a possibility that a memorial service will be held at the Eastern
Rendezvous in September.

John helped leave me with wonderful memories of that era of muzzleloading.
I am doing my best to pass on to others the inspiration and enthusiasm of
old Dinglehoofer.

Respectfully,

Chris

[Dphariss]

If you want know about proof loads do the research and educate yourself.

I use a double service charge and a two patched balls.

I don't.

The subject is muzzleloader barrels not modern CF barrels.
And to reiterate, I leave it to the modern muzzleloader barrel manufacturers, not conjecture on the internet.
To suppose that I know more about how to double check behind TC, GM, or Rice barrel makers would be egotistical and arrogant on my part.    

A double serivce charge / double ball ??
That's hardly a "proof load"...that's just an occasional accidental morning happenstance at the range.

You indicated you don't know anything about the subject, have not studied it, but are suddenly an expert who knows enough to be a critic?
Classic.
YOU ASKED THE QUESTION. I told you how to answer it and gave you some information.

I am sure this will come as a surprise but the failures of the modern stainless guns is almost surely the result of the same factors that caused a rash of blow ups of TC Hawkens back in the 70's into the early 80s. The stainless guns are made of FREE MACHINING  material. It is SFAIK not approved for "pressure vessels" by the ASME at least the last I read on the subject. 416 and 416R stainless.

But you knew early TCs had a tendency to blow up. Right?
You knew that the Douglas barrels until near the end of production were free machining carbon steel, right? (Late production appeared to be the same material annealed I suppose in an attempt to make them less brittle).
Some of these failed for no apparent reason.  Brittle fractures just like the stainless bolt guns and blown revolvers I have seen photos of and the unexplained TCs (some were stupidity but apparently the public suddenly got smarter because the blowups stopped like someone flipped a switch). I was simply trying to show a parallel pointing out that they were failing for the SAME BASIC REASON. Brittle material. The European maker claimed it was a bad lot of steel, they could not hide behind the "handloading shield" when factory ammo was being used so they issued a recall.

This has been a pet subject of mine for over 30 years. When did you start thinking about it?

The double service charge and double ball is similar to the British proof of the late 19th century and likely exceeds Belgium and Spain of the same period but I have no info for that.
The current standard in Italy is a 30% overload but this is for smokeless powder.

It is extremely unlikely that a GM barrel is going to fail in service. But there IS a possibility. Since I have been slow to evolve the ability to grow new body parts I proof them anyway.
Roy Keeler thought that proving barrels was a waste of time since he never had one fail in proof or service, until a gun he built blew in the hands of a customer. Douglas barrel 45 caliber. The funny part is that, given the material it may not have failed in proof. But we will never know.
He wrote a report about it in Muzzle Blasts and then, even though he was a ML parts supplier had to buy all his Douglas barrels through a third party (I am told). Fortunately this barrel split up the top flat not the bottom. I examined this barrel or another 45 that failed in the same manner at a friends shop in circa 1969.

Dan

[gregg]

I remember seeing muzzle loading barrel in the buckskin report that when they came apart look all most like they were cast iron. WE know they were not but they had the jagged broken look to the failed steel.
Wish we could buy the old buckskin report in a book form kind of like Keith's notes I think its called.

[Rolf]

"DO NOT:Load with more than ONE round ball at a time and never attempt to shoot a conical bullet in a round ball (slow twist) barrel."

This is a quote copied directly from the Rice barrel website. He does not directly suggest the barrels should not be proofed, but that seems to be the consequence.

Best regards

Rolfkt

[Dphariss]

"DO NOT:Load with more than ONE round ball at a time and never attempt to shoot a conical bullet in a round ball (slow twist) barrel."

This is a quote copied directly from the Rice barrel website. He does not directly suggest the barrels should not be proofed, but that seems to be the consequence.

Best regards

Rolfkt

I believe the concern is trapped air between the balls forcing one back up the bore to form an obstruction but other than asking Rice this is supposition.

Dan

[Dphariss]

I remember seeing muzzle loading barrel in the buckskin report that when they came apart look all most like they were cast iron. WE know they were not but they had the jagged broken look to the failed steel.
Wish we could buy the old buckskin report in a book form kind of like Keith's notes I think its called.

John did this but not all issues/articles were included. I have the two books out in the shop but would have to look to see exactly what is included. It certainly was not everything.
Part of the problem in reproduction is that the photography etc in the original magazines is pretty poor and reproduces even worse.
I have access to 2 full set of Mags IIRC. I also have a couple of boxes that contain several partial sets but a friend has them right now. I got Vivian's car running last spring and she gave me the old office set in the binders it was out in her garage .

Dan

[mattdog]

"DO NOT:Load with more than ONE round ball at a time and never attempt to shoot a conical bullet in a round ball (slow twist) barrel."

This is a quote copied directly from the Rice barrel website. He does not directly suggest the barrels should not be proofed, but that seems to be the consequence.

Best regards

Rolfkt

I believe the concern is trapped air between the balls forcing one back up the bore to form an obstruction but other than asking Rice this is supposition.

Dan


In the process of trying to "blow" one of my barrels as an experiment I found that trapped air between the two balls was a major concern.  I had a helper who was about 35 years old, young and strong as a bull.  We (he) struggled with seating the second ball.  About half way down the bore it began to hydrolic and refused to be seated.  We (he) would push it down and one or two seconds later it would pop back up the bore 2 or 3 inches.  Eventually we ( he) got it seated and ready to fire.  Seconds before  I touched it off we heard a tiny "boop" from the barrel and danged if the ball hadn't popped up again.  We let it set for about five minutes hoping that some of the trapped air would escape on its own.  It worked and we were finally able to fire the gun safely.  But it raised much concern.  I now wonder how in heck could someone double charge a gun without knowing it.  ??  I'm also conceerned about someone with out experience trying to proof a barrel with double charge and double ball.

Matt  

[Daryl]

I believe the concern is trapped air between the balls forcing one back up the bore to form an obstruction but other than asking Rice this is supposition.
Dan

That's the way I read it too.

The Hydraulic force is difficult to overcome unless a less-than snug patch is used for the top ball.  With the normal patching we use it is almost impossible to keep the second ball on the first - Matt's experience about mirrors mine on this.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

This is the result of loading two balls on a single charge, and having the second ball hydraulic up the bore a couple of inches.  This catastrophic failure occurred during a rendezvous event in the 1980's called a stake shoot where individuals had to cut a 2 x 4 off between two marks in the shortest possible time.  The shooter here was standing on the far right hand side of the line, next to me.  The .54 cal Hawken rifle was of my make, and had a 1" GRRW barrel 36" long.  We never found the hammer.  No one was injured, but the shooter developed a considerable flinch that took years to overcome.  We don't do this event anymore.

[gregg]

I maybe should not go here but???
To seat two balls, patch the first ball and seat it flush with the top of the muzzle.
Set the second patch and ball on top of the first patched and seated ball.It should be sitting on the first patched ball. This way there is never ever an air space between the two balls. Take your short starter and pound balls down together. Now push them down with your ramrod to the top of your powder charge.
Just a thought about air entrapment .
On a single load in a shotgun I will bite the overshot card just a little with my front teeth just enough
so the air can bleed off.

[Rasch Chronicles]

DTS,

WOW! That's certainly not pretty...

Now, I don't know anything about this proofing buisness, but it seems to me that if the barrel has no flaws, the next weakest point might be the breech plug. But in all the pictures of blown up barrels I've seen, maybe a half dozen, all the breech plugs were intact. So that throws that theory out the window.

I remember reading lots of annecdotes about early African and Aisian explorers loading multiple projectiles in their muzzleloader. Ball with buckshot over it, multiple balls, and substancial ammounts of Black powder to make it all go. If you kill me I can't remember exactly where I have read it, but I do remember it.

So maybe they had a different technique; the balls didn't fit as tight, or some other variable that we'ra not aware of.

Haveing said that, I don't think I have any desire or need to put a couple of lead balls on top of each other just yet...

Best Regards,
Albert A Rasch In Afghanistan™
Scouting for Hogs, Chronicles Style!

[gregg]

Back in the day they were called buck and ball loads. It was like a ball with three or four buckshot on top all held with a wad. I have never done it so know very little about it. I can see back in the day of mass musket fire where it could of help put a little more lead out to raise the odds to maybe take more of the other side out of the fight???

[Dphariss]

One must be very careful in seating the second ball.
I have never had one come back up after being seated though it is possible to hear some air escape around the patch and I push the second down slow and then  attempt to reseat 2-3 times to see if its moving. I use a .005-.010 under bore ball with a .018 patch. If the ball insists on coming back up after 2-3 seatings, its gotta be pulled I would expect this was more likely in a smoothbore than a rifle.  But this may be a "your mileage may vary" thing and others experience may be different.

I know of a light GM swamped 50 caliber barrel that was fired with 2 complete loads powder/ball/powder/ball with no change in the bore dimension or accuracy.
Obviously this did not deform this barrel  and GM swamps appear to be completely annealed based on how easy they can be bent.

The burst gun is classic. The barrel did not deform much it seems before failing. This is not how its supposed to be.
I will refrain from further comment before I get into real trouble.

Dan

[Daryl]

Double loading, ie: powder patch ball, powder patch ball is easily done with a double rifle.  The pressure developed is similar to 2 balls plus the weight of the powder charge being the 'final' ejecta.

 I suspect a very thin patch combination, if used for both balls, as in a .010" to .012" as used by some shooters, might have the charge between the balls igniting and that might not be very good , health wise.

Total weight of this double loaded 'projectile' is generally about the same as a heavy conical bullet for that bore size, ie: in my .58, recently fired without any damage what-so-ever and not even nasty recoil was  2 x 275gr. ball + 100gr. charge = 650gr. - not a 'light' projectile by any stroke, but a heavy one indeed - same 'weight' as in the heavy load for the .577 Black Powder Express. except that ctg. used up to 160gr. of powder.

2, .570" balls loaded with my normal .0225" patching, will not allow the air to escape from between them - they will keep separating when pressure is removed from the rod.  A much thinner patch must be use to allow the air to escape betwen the balls or certainly a bomb was made.

Upon ignition, the balls probably swage together as in Lyman's pictures although may not weld to each other and merely fly close together for a short time, but rest assured, they will both be well 'marked' from the rifling as they are mashed together.  I would not expect long range accuracy, not even to 100yards - 50 or 60 tops - perhaps.  Too - double balling will drastically reduce the velocity and cause the impact to be very low. A typical single ball muzzle speed of 1,420fps (about 80gr. 2f in a .50) will be redcued to less than the speed of sound, if 2 balls are used - probably.  Use your own chronograph to find out, not mine.

The reason for such a good seal in this doubler barreled rifle, is due to the combination used in rather shallow rifling (.008"), even though it is quite easy loading, with the factory 3/8" hickory rod. I quite enjoy using this rifle, sometimes firing rights then lefts on the smae target. Taylor and LB can attest to it's accuracy of fire. A single rear sight is used.