How to tell if it's Safe to Shoot?

[Ky-Flinter]

This is more of a gun-smithing question, than a building question, so feel free to move if needbe.

How would you go about determining if this rifle is safe to shoot?  Obviously it needs cleaned up and a tang bolt made for it.







Thanks,
-Ron

[greybeard]

I'm bettin that 98% are going to say "Don't shoot it"
Personally I have no opinion on the subject.
Bob

[Jerry V Lape]

IWithout pulling the breechplug and the drum to check on conditions of the threads in both place, I don't see how anyone can rationally make a valid judgement.  However the barrel looks pretty good from the muzzle and there is certainly enough steel around the bore.  I would be surprised if the gun could not be made shootable once the two sets of theads are checked and secured. 

[Cody Tetachuk]

Take it to Vegas and have Chumlee shoot it.

[Habu]

I used to have my baby brother shoot the gun with proof loads, on the theory that the family had less time invested in him than me.

No, as a matter of fact we aren't particularly close as adults.  Why do you ask?   

[Gaeckle]

First and formost: make sure the gun is NOT loaded or there is a wad of paper, a wasp nest, a chunk of cleaning patch or any other item in the bore.

Remove the barrel from the stock, carefully remove the drum and nipple (may be frozen together) and remove the breech.......size up the bore, figure out the ball size, put it back together (get any built up crud or $#@* out of the drum and nipple) make sure the nipple is clear.

[Tim Crosby]

Take it to Vegas and have Chumlee shoot it.

 LMAO!

 Tim C.

[JTR]

As said, make sure it's not loaded!

Have you dropped a light down the barrel, to be sure the rifling is in good enough condition to go to the trouble to shoot it?

I don't usually suggest shooting them, but this one looks in good shape, and isn't actually That old. 1860s/ 1880s I'm guessing. Maybe not even that old.

I can agree with the merit of checking out the breech and drum threads, although it might be easier said, than done. Most of the old guns have been apart so many times the breech plugs come out pretty easily. This one doesn't look like its ever been apart.

From the pictures, despite the bit of light rust on the barrel, it looks like the gun is in very nice original condition. If the bore is in equally good condition, you could almost bet that the breech and drum threads are in good condition as well.
 
If everything looks good to you, I'd try to shoot the barrel only,,,, tied to a tire or something first, before I put er up to my shoulder, and squinted down the sights!

John

[MarkEngraver]

I also am voting for Chumlee, that would make for some riveting television !

[Dogshirt]

I used to have my baby brother shoot the gun with proof loads, on the theory that the family had less time invested in him than me.

No, as a matter of fact we aren't particularly close as adults.  Why do you ask?   

I thought that was what little brothers were for! I'm surprised mine made it to adulthood.

[blunderbuss]

 

A few friends and I were shooting salutes about two years ago and one fellow was using an original .34 cal rifle He used 75 gr ffg of some type of synthetic black powder the result was an explosion the barrel went into many pieces his hand was damaged but he recovered. The barrel broke in two ,other parts fragmented like a hand grenade. There were no seam burst as one normally sees in barrel failures. On examination of the barrel we concluded that the barrel was perhaps made of very inferior metal resembling cast iron.
Perhaps the maker thought that it would be OK to make a small cal barrel out of inferior material as he had no idea any one would shoot 75 gr out of it. Some where there is a picture of the moment the barrel burst I'll see if I can find it .

[Ky-Flinter]

Thanks guys.  The rifle doesn't belong to me.  Belongs to a guy here in town. 

I did confirm it isn't loaded, bore is clear.  I did drop a bore light down the tube and it looks as good all the way down as the muzle picture indicates.

I'm thinking take the barrel out, stand it vertical and pour in a little Kroil and let her sit a while, then give the breech plug a try.

What about removing the drum.  My thinking is I'll need to make a wrench out of some bar stock, with a very snug fitting cut out for the drum/nipple.  Any other ideas on how to remove the drum without ruining it?

Thanks again for all the suggestions....  Including Chumlee and little brother!

-Ron

[Dphariss]

My standard answer is "old guns are not safe to shoot".
Its one thing to look one over and shoot it for your own recreation.
Looking it over for someone else and saying its safe to shoot? Would NEVER do.
Too much liability risk for me.
Give it back to him just like he brought it too you with the advice in the first sentence.

Dan

[Dphariss]

A few friends and I were shooting salutes about two years ago and one fellow was using an original .34 cal rifle He used 75 gr ffg of some type of synthetic black powder the result was an explosion the barrel went into many pieces his hand was damaged but he recovered. The barrel broke in two ,other parts fragmented like a hand grenade. There were no seam burst as one normally sees in barrel failures. On examination of the barrel we concluded that the barrel was perhaps made of very inferior metal resembling cast iron.
Perhaps the maker thought that it would be OK to make a small cal barrel out of inferior material as he had no idea any one would shoot 75 gr out of it. Some where there is a picture of the moment the barrel burst I'll see if I can find it .

ALL the steel from this era is "faulty" or "inferior" by modern standards. We have not the slightest idea what the alloy is and the makers really did not either. The failure you describe is typical of a brittle steel.
Some of the "synthetics" get very nasty if excessively compressed and people love to compress blank charges.
This could cause an excessively fast pressure rise and this can cause a ductile barrel to fail like it was brittle. Another reason to shoot only BP in vintage arms if a person feels he must do so.

Dan

[Ky-Flinter]

My standard answer is "old guns are not safe to shoot".
Its one thing to look one over and shoot it for your own recreation.
Looking it over for someone else and saying its safe to shoot? Would NEVER do.
Too much liability risk for me.
Give it back to him just like he brought it too you with the advice in the first sentence.

Dan

Dan,

That is profound.  After mulling it over, I believe I will do just that.  Thanks.

-Ron

[Gaeckle]

My standard answer is "old guns are not safe to shoot".
Its one thing to look one over and shoot it for your own recreation.
Looking it over for someone else and saying its safe to shoot? Would NEVER do.
Too much liability risk for me.
Give it back to him just like he brought it too you with the advice in the first sentence.

Dan

I agree, yet I disagree with this statement..........the example provided of an individual using 75 grains of 2f topped off with some sythectic (perhaps smokeless?) is bordering on insane considering a small caliber of 34.....That is as wise as wondering if there is any gas left in a gas can and using a lit match to see if there is......

That being said, old barrels of years ago were intended to be shot with blackpowder, not a substitute. Many years ago and well into the past youngsters learned to shoot with instructions from the elders. It could easily be surmised that the young were taught to be moderate with their powder charges and not to be overly agressive with seating the ball.

I do not advocate anybody doing so, especially in fear of losing fingers, getting maimed or possible death, but I would feel comfortable shooting and using old barrels, depending upon their condition. Moderation and caution are as essential as ball and powder.........

New made modern barrels can also be rendered useless splinters if not properly managed, fed or cared for........

Just my opinion.

[TMerkley]

One idea, might be to use it as a pattern to build a new one or put a modern barrel on it that is the same as the original.  Might be better and cheaper than buying a new rifle.  Save the old barrel for historic reasons and put back on at a later time.

Would be an interesting weekend project.

[ddoyle]

If the bore is in a condition that there is a reasonable chance for accuracy, if there are no problems found in the breeching/venting then I'd have no trouble strapping it to a hay bale with a light load. When you pull the breech plug you might decide to lap the barrel with a lead lap.

The question you pose " is it safe to shoot?" needs to be answered with a firm no!. However if the question is " after careful consideration of manufacturing quality, condition and load would it be reasonable to attempt proofing this antique ?" then the answer is yeah.

It is all about the load/pressure.

[Dphariss]

My standard answer is "old guns are not safe to shoot".
Its one thing to look one over and shoot it for your own recreation.
Looking it over for someone else and saying its safe to shoot? Would NEVER do.
Too much liability risk for me.
Give it back to him just like he brought it too you with the advice in the first sentence.

Dan

I agree, yet I disagree with this statement..........the example provided of an individual using 75 grains of 2f topped off with some sythectic (perhaps smokeless?) is bordering on insane considering a small caliber of 34.....That is as wise as wondering if there is any gas left in a gas can and using a lit match to see if there is......

That being said, old barrels of years ago were intended to be shot with blackpowder, not a substitute. Many years ago and well into the past youngsters learned to shoot with instructions from the elders. It could easily be surmised that the young were taught to be moderate with their powder charges and not to be overly agressive with seating the ball.

I do not advocate anybody doing so, especially in fear of losing fingers, getting maimed or possible death, but I would feel comfortable shooting and using old barrels, depending upon their condition. Moderation and caution are as essential as ball and powder.........

New made modern barrels can also be rendered useless splinters if not properly managed, fed or cared for........

Just my opinion.

I have shot old barrels in the past and will likely do it again if I felt like it.
But to have someone else come to me with a old gun, even a late 19th century breech loader and ask if its safe to shot.
Nope.
Once the gunsmith tells people something is safe HE assumes liability, there is little point in a lawsuit against someone who has been dead since 1860.
Its too easy to loose everything you own or ever will in this scenario.
I have seen modern guns broken true. But if they are made of PROPER materials its very rare.
The problem here is "proper materials" by modern standards there were not proper materials in the 19th century.
I have seen late 1880s Winchesters with numbers lines running full length of the bore that can only be "forging lines"  IE flaws from the manufacturing process. This in an otherwise pristine bore.
In working with mid-late 19th century guns I have just seen too much in the way of flaws etc to tell people old guns are safe to shoot.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to PROOF a faulty barrel/breech parts and make a decision on its being safe or not. It may stand proof an then burst on the next shot with a normal load. But this is something a lot of people can't seem to understand. Brittle materials and materials with flaws are not predictable enough for a "proof" to prove anything.
OR so I have read in the writings of metallurgists.

Dan

[Dave Faletti]

Dan I agree on the proof testing.  Depending on material and stress something can fail anywhere from one load cycle to never. I still like a moderate over pressure proof to check a new gun.  Major overloads are for checking a design prototype.

[ddoyle]

Yeah sorry if I gave the impression that he should fire a 'proof' pressure load and then consider it safe. I would not suggest exposing it to any pressures higher then what he would consider a light plinking load. think .32rf short here.

either way I'd still pull the trigger remotely.

Something I have done in the past when I worked in the business was to get a radiograph (xray) done on old barrels. Amazing what you find in there (or don't) it wont tell you about the ductile strength of the material but it will let you know if there is some gross delimitation or inclusions etc. A scan of an xray of the breech/first inches of the barrel makes a neat framed display beside a wall hanger. 

[Dphariss]

Dan I agree on the proof testing.  Depending on material and stress something can fail anywhere from one load cycle to never. I still like a moderate over pressure proof to check a new gun.  Major overloads are for checking a design prototype.

I proof everything. Modern certified alloy steels will tolerate anything BP can produce behind any projectile with no strain.
The things that REALLY need testing are the vent liners and such. The thread tolerance can make an otherwise safe part/installation unsafe.
I have a 1/4-32 tap that seems to be at the upper end of tolerance and I ended up grinding the die so the holder could expand the split die to make something like a reasonable fit.
I could not find a H1 tolerance tap when I looked. This last liner means I need to order another tap and hope its a little tighter if I can't find an H1.
I just proofed a 36 with 75 grains of FFF Swiss and 2 balls. Nothing moved. This is probably still only a 50% overload pressure wise.
The British did pretty heavy overloads for everything except cartridge shotguns according to my 1896 printing "The Gun" .
The proof they would perform on a barrel like I did today is double service powder and a bullet 1 1/3 the ball weight (Second, Fourth, Sixth and Seventh classes). The Second class includes ..."Single Muzzle-loading rifled Arms of every description, except arms of the 7th and 8th Classes".
My load above was probably a little heavy on lead, but might be light on powder 37 grains is probably going to be light for the accuracy load but this will not be known for awhile.

A 20 bore "Carolina" (one of the Third class guns) would be proved with a 316 gr ball and 219 gr of powder. This is the lower "Definitive Proof" the only one used for this class.
When we consider the possibility that guns we make could be used with propellants that are sold as BP replacements but are capable of and even designed to produce higher pressure, like T7, proofing a to the upper end is not a bad idea. Not proving to a high enough level is really no proof and IMO is pointless. Greener's book gives a guide for what is and is not an adequate proof.
Dan

[Ted Kramer]

This reminds me of when a young man I know (now a border patrol agent in Arizona) brought me an 1863 Springfield CW rifle which was missing both front and rear sights. He said he wanted to have sights put on it so "it would look original" again and mentioned that the guy he bought it from in Arizona said he had been shooting it. I told him I could/would put the sights on but that he should then hang it on the wall and think of it as a piece of history.

When I started on the sight installation I checked to be sure it was not loaded, it wasn't, but it also had not been cleaned properly from the last shooting session. The bore was pitted badly and probably has been for a century. After many cleaning patches, brush strokes and oiled steel wool, it was still like a sewer pipe.

I fit the rear sight and screwed it down with a newly made screw, silver soldered the front sight on and it "looked original" again. That's what he said he wanted but on the invoice I wrote that I would not consider it safe to shoot and signed my name under the statement. For his safety and the safety of those nearby, I hope he doesn't try to shoot it but from a liability standpoint, I wanted to be sure I warned him.

Old, questionably safe guns should be looked at but not fired, IMO.

Ted K

[ERH]

If proofing dose not tell u anything about the barrel then why have they bin doing it for hundreds of years

[Dphariss]

If proofing dose not tell u anything about the barrel then why have they bin doing it for hundreds of years

If the material is suitable for gun barrels proving is a valid concept. But if the material is unsuitable then proving proves nothing except that it did not fail with that shot.
A modern barrel made of an unsuitable steel alloy or a steel that is cold rolled or made with no extra care to assure its sound and relatively free of inclusions cannot be "proved" to assure it will not fail with a service load at some later date.

Dan