Reproductions from India

[Daryl]

These "new" guns being offered from India without vents drilled, have all the BRITISH proof marks stamped into them - copied and never proofed as they are built as a repro, non-firing piece - there.  Here in NA - instructions as to drilling the vents is given by the marketers as well as glowing praise how they are better made in the breeching as well as having super strong, high grade 'tubing' barrels, overall better than the Pedersoli repro's at slightly less cost?

[Dphariss]

   Last I heard Dan , the ones that burst were shown to have  had obstructions .
 Whole big write up on it at one time over on the FF forum  with photos , and copies of the reports from the testing companies .
 But ˝ dozen of one or the other as its not like there have never been any US made barrels burst .
 Compared to the numbers sold  , they don’t seem to being doing any worse then  the big name US firearms companies

 I did some research into the Indian made guns , some years ago . Even went so far as to speak with the head of the IOB  on the subject . Factually they have some very strict laws  which would  prevent most folks here from producing  the rifles we make .
 The loop hole however is that  one must make what they call a curiosity  , which then removes the  piece from government control as well as the Export / import laws .
It also means that the importer or end customer  must modify  the piece to make it functional . In other words there must be some type of reasonable expectation that  the piece was built to a given standard .

 Its also not just re-enactors that are purchasing these  as I have read of many folks and personally know a couple others who use them for hunting . In the end there are many different suppliers and a handful of different importers. Thus it would be best to know who your buying from .
 Also wonder  concerning  some of the remarks here  concerning the “correctness”
 Are they really that far off from the pre-carve  assemblies offered  by so many ?
  isn’t it rather hard to  support out standards when  they are not building using the tooling we do and we are not building  using the same standards they are  or for that mater in the same time constraints .

 Its sad to say  but I think  its much like all the rest of the industry in this country .
Spend some  money , train the people  to compete in our market  and  there is no reason they cant do what we do , do it cheaper and still be doing it at 4-5 X the average wage in their country ..

 I  also find it rather odd  that while  we all seem to agree that what they produce is sub standard , it doesn’t change the fact that they are producing those rifles in a way most of us don’t have  the capability or for that mater the knowledge of doing 

How does one get an "obstruction" when shooting ONLY powder? Why would the fouling all pile up in one place midway up the barrel?  I read the report from White Laboratory on this barrel and it reads NOTHING like some others I have read where they were paid the actually inspect for cause AND the material used in the barrel. Further it was paid for by the IMPORTER who I am sure got what he paid for OR seriously redacted the report.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a bore restriction if the powder can reach the vent when its dumped in. ANY modern steel if its not riddled with flaws, seams or is not too brittle cannot be blown by BP without a projectile. The powder simply cannot make enough pressure.  But people who use this junk want to believe there was some loading error. 
HOWEVER. I then  must go back to the Garand barrel that Dad shot once with dirt in the bore. The 152 gr FMJ struck the dirt at at least 2700 fps. It was about 2" BEHIND the front sight. Garand barrels are not very thick walled at this point. Did the barrel burst and produce fragments? Did it split? No it simply bulged. This was a war production 1942 barrel made of 4150 according to the specifications. So I really wish people would THINK. This is a photo from the old Buckskin Report of a Douglas barrel that was shot with a stuck ball due to over charging and the resulting hard fouling, IIRC it was about 10" from the muzzle and it only bulged. Given what I know now this was somewhat surprising but its a fact and the photo is of the barrel after it was machined to show the bore condition which was slightly bulged and shows some heat bluing where the gases passed around the ball and patch before the ball started to move.

Most modern steels have tensile numbers well (factor of 3 at least) above the pressure level the BP will produce with a projectile like a RB so long as the steel is properly made. Cheap steel tubing is not suitable for gun barrels this is common knowledge.  So claiming that a non-existent bore obstruction caused the failure is simply a CWA ploy.  One cannot load a ML barrel with a bore obstruction. I bet I can launch a tennis ball a considerable distance from the piece of PVC pipe with BP. In fact I may give this a try if I can figure a way to contain any possible fragments.

Dan

[bob in the woods]

Didn't Sam Fadala do a number of load tests with copper pipe with one end sealed by a tin can filled with lead [ melted in ]   ??     The copper held .  He did manage to bulge a few, but it took a short starred ball to blow one.   The problem as I see it , [ only my personal belief ]  is that  tubing is not consistent in hardness, and can also work harden. I've seen hydraulic tubing used on farm tractors and pick up truck snowplows split /crack over time.  Honestly, I trust the stuff Colerain, Getz, and others use  more than tubing, since it's relatively soft.
I have seen a number of barrels bulged over the years, usually due to short starting.  These were percussion rifles. I have never seen a flintlock rifle do this, although I suppose it;s possible, however I refer back to Getz Barrel Co. doing a test with a section of barrel . They put a breach plug in both ends, with a touchhole in the centre of the barrel with a bore full of powder. They fired it with a fuse, and the barrel held !!    All the pressure relieved through that vent.
I was impressed, but it also indicated to me the inherent safety of a flintlock over a non vented percussion gun.
PS-   I should mention, that I have owned a "Bess" for a brief period and used it a lot, until one day , I decided to remove the breach. That turned out to be a game changer for me.   The breaching is IMO far more of an issue than even the barrel material used. 

[Captchee]

 To answer your question Dan .
 Fouling for one   may have been a big culprit in at least one of these cases .
 Because  at a lot of re-enactments  things like RR , wads .. Are forbidden .
 Thus powder is poured down the barrel , settled  with a thump of the stock .  The effect is that you still get a loud  report. However what happens is the fouling then starts to build in different areas forward of the breech . As this build it restricts the  bore .
Since a lot of these folks also do not maintain their guns , that fouling then begins to harden and carbonize  creating an even larger blockage .
 I  actually participated in one such event. After firing only around 7 shots , I literally could not get my cleaning jag down the bore . Oddly also the majority of that fouling was in the forward ˝ of the bore .
 Will never ever do that again.
Again though at least one gun I know of , was sent off and inspected . The finding was that the damage was most likely caused by an obstruction

[TPH]

Captchee says: "....powder is poured down the barrel , settled  with a thump of the stock .  The effect is that you still get a loud  report. However what happens is the fouling then starts to build in different areas forward of the breech . As this build it restricts the  bore ."

Captchee, I disagree with what you say concerning firing blanks. If properly cleaned after each day of blank firing, there is no way that fouling can build up to produce the kind of fouling obstructions that you are talking about. When I was active in Civil War reenacting, 15 to 25 years ago, I personally fired as many as 50 rounds per day with no such problems as that type of fouling developing. Of course, at the end of each days event I and the majority of people involved, properly cleaned our guns using water and a military wiper until the bore was completely clean. I never saw a case where uneven deposits of fouling developed in the bore that could have caused the kind of restrictions that the White Labs claim to have caused the widely publicized rupture of the Brown Bess barrel. The only fouling that I experienced firing literally thousands of blanks without the use of a ramrod or wads or anything else was a smooth, even coating of very hard fouling running from the breech to the muzzle but even that hard fouling was easy to remove with the use of water and a wiper with cotton patches.

The above being said, I have always felt that the rupture in that particular barrel was caused by a severe lack of care on the part of the boob using it. Many (but certainly not all) reenactors don't bother to clean their muskets for years, not just a few times shooting and that behavior will cause obstructions in the barrel but even then I doubt that this would cause enough of a restriction to cause that catastrophic failure, the bore would have to be completely fouled forming a solid obstruction and then, how would you get powder to the breech to be fired?

Keep in mind that I am not defending the quality of the barrels of the Indian made "Imitation Guns" (the words of Indian law describing what the makers are producing there) but what they said caused the failure is highly doubtful. It was most likely caused by heavy fouling build up over years of improper care and who knows how many failures to fire he had before it finally went off with an overcharge. As Dan said in his post, I'm sure HP White Labs was well paid for their statements.

[Captchee]

Agreed TPH . However we then have to assume that the gun was taken care of .
 Which was really the big question  when trying to discern what actually happened .
   Im not sure which one Dan is speaking of as the two is have seen photos of
a) blow up at the event  in question
b) purposefully blown
 Neither of theses seemed to be missing parts of the barrel . They simply split just as any  barrel does when the bore pressure exceeds the limits of the barrel .

As to the fouling . What you describe was not what I fount in my De Chase . As I said , the greatest % of fouling was forward of the middle of the barrel . That was using 80 grains of 2F Goex  for loads  vs. a lot of re-enactments  distribute their powder Thus  given charges  of a re-enactment type powder  so Half of one , dozen of another .

 The other question is  that IF there wasn’t a blockage , what would have caused the barrels to do what they did without  the ability to build pressure  with nothing more then  the forward  charge  creating enough weight to  resist and create the report.
 Lets not forget that  cardboard or fiberglass tubes are used to contain the lift BP  charge for a lot of very large Fire works . Thus withstanding a lot more pressure then the barrel in question would have had to withstand , without  even the same  projectile resistance .

I simply fail to see how  without a blockage of sufficient  resistance BP could ever produce the pressures needed to  result in barrel failure

 I have read where some have claimed the barrel to be Pot metal . Pot metal doesn’t act  the same as the two barrels . IE it will turn to shrapnel . But neither of the above mentioned barrels did that . They factually split with no shrapnel .
 That however still leaves us with  HOW  enough pressure could be built to result in a rupture  as the pressure is going to follow the point of least resistance  IE out the muzzle  unless there is enough resistance to allow the pressure to build to the point  that the barrel is the weaker  resistance .

  However as I pointed out before .”We”  IE the folks here , cannot even agree on what is the proper barrel material  to use .
As I recall the last time , Don Getz , rest his soul ,  made his  statement , which smacked right against those  who seemed to know better .

 Lets also remember the reason why Douglas   used extruded steel  for their barrels . Not however without issues  and lawsuits . But in fairness those failures  were not as I recall the result of re-enactment type loads .

 So really no mater what ones take on this issue is , we still have to  explain how those barrels burst without  some type of blockage .
 If we  fall on the side of the owner , then they did nothing . But then as we all know , know one ever does anything . Failures just happen .

  Again im not defending these guns , their manufacture  or anything else . I just think if we are to  have any real validity in what we are saying , then we also must hold our own  accountable to the same standards .  IMO that means not accepting  poorly faced breech plugs ,  heli coils , under lugs and sights being milled to within 1/8 of an inch of the bore.
Extruded barrels………..
 IE whats good for the goose , is good for the gander .

So anyway , good discussion .
 I think that the  person who ask the question can discern for themselves  that while not of high quality , the locks and barrels  on these guns are  not as good as the majority , but not as bad as a minority   



 



PS
 As to who was paid for their statements .
 Could we not say that about anyone  who  publishes a finding  concerning a gun failure ??
 Lets not forget we are only a small % of the overall gun manufacturing in this country . There are a lot of failures . Right now  there are issues with stainless barrels . Issues with triggers ,…….
  So frankly if we have another viable explanation or can find a flaw in the published  findings , then lets address those mistakes . Until we can do that ,   blind statements , accusations or innuendos about   the issue  is really nothing more then an opinion,.
  Seriously if the  findings , which frankly  were nothing more then a “we don’t know  for sure “  are so far off base , then surely those of us here who are actual gunsmiths  could  easily blow the   findings out of the water . Could we not ?

Anyway , be safe guys . Try and stay warm