I just removed the "long range shooting ?" topic by now all of you should know the rules on what is allowable discussion here on ALR. If you want to discuss bullet guns, modern guns and barrels please do it on another forum where the rules allow for that kind of discussion. This board is for side-lock muzzle loaders.
Dennis
Other than deciding to be obstinately ignorant there is no way to avoid discussions of some modern topics here because thats where the data is. Its irresponsible to operate on myth and old wives tales where safety is involved. Most of the technical discussions are safety related in one way or another and the data is all modern in one way or another.
We live in a modern world there is a LOT of valuable data out there but its almost all in the "modern world" context since compared to the data collected on "modern" firearms there is almost nothing for MLing. Example, Lyman in making their BP Handbook with all the velocities in it, did not understand, or did not care about, the wide variations in quality of the powders they were using (powder that would have been rejected by someone like the British Gov't or Dupont in the 18th c for several reasons). Not just lot to lot but in the same case or even in the same CAN. So we see relatively wide, unexplainable variations from the same barrel. Sloppy science. But it was only MLs so who cared?
How do I know about the power quality? Partly from correspondence, this was the WHY. I never noticed it in MLs but when loading
BPCR ammo with the then only available powder it was instantly noticeable (the powder problem is fixed now but the inconsistent data is still in use ). Because you can see the powder in the case after its drop tubed. So thats where the visual data really was not with MLs since people never see the charge in the powder bed. I submit that some of the tests done by Lyman were shot with powder that was 10% or more DUST that was at least partly inert so far as an effective propellant is concerned. So in anything but general terms the info is garbage from the scientific standpoint.
There IS no data for ML in most fields and the information for brass suppository guns IS valid to ML use and SAFETY in some contexts.
There is a 3 cavity mould marked "Gumpf" with a pointed FB Picket, a slug that is round at each end and a RB cavity in Whiskers book on the Lancaster makers. These bullet guns were not really practical for anything except specialty uses, but they were used in the LRs of the period. Garrard in "Wah-To-Yah and the Taos Trail" (IIRC) tells of seeing a man with a Hawken rifle that shot a bullet an inch long in the 1840s. I don't encourage the use of any elongated bullet since they are all impractical except for very specific uses but they were there and are part of the "American rifle" history.
Barrel material? We cannot have a discussion of this and not discuss modern barrel steels, its impossible. Unless we decide to simply stick our heads in the sand.
So long as the discussion is not about breechloaders and the mention is only incidental to the discussion I can't see a problem. Its often the only way to see the proof of a statement.
When people are bursting MLs with BLANK CHARGES that cannot possibly make more than a thousand PSI since there is not even a WAD present and people make poorly thought out statements about how it was "not loaded right" (?) or was "dirty" when modern barrel steels ROUTINELY contain pressures of 55000-65000 when RED HOT then we need a reality check. Without the mention of modern steels and the pressures they routinely contain where is the reality check? There is none. Then we have to ask do we WANT a reality check? If not, WHY not? Is it OK, for example, to use substandard steels in barrels but its not OK to explain WHY they are substandard and what the alternatives are? How does this work? How are people to be informed? Facts are facts. Ignoring the facts does not make them disappear.
Discussing steel alloys and their suitability for a given use in longrifle building is a valid topic. ALL of the materials are modern and 12L14 may well be newer than 4150.
Dan
