Douglas Stainless barrels?

[kentucky bucky]

Did Douglas ever make a stainless muzzleloader barrel? Just wondering........

[FALout]

I doubt it

[Mad Monk]

Stainless steel for ML barrels was discussed back in the 1980s.  GOEX BP contained some potassium chloride that was residual to the original potassium nitrate production.  Then in Pyrodex we were looking at potassium perchlorate that would be found as potassium chloride in the powder's combustion residue in the bore.  The grades of stainless that would be best suited to a ML barrel are also the least chloride resistant grades of stainless.  With time the chlorides would leach the iron granules out of the stainless leaving what looks like a chrome sponge.  Chrome is very hard and very brittle.  Eventually it would fail when fired.  Dramatically!

I worked in a chemical plant that processed vinyl chloride monomer.  Polymerizing it into polyvinyl chloride resins.  This leaching/corrosion of the stainless steel was always a problem if the wrong grade of stainless steel was used.  Failed parts were handed to me to be looked at under the high power microscopes to see if the failure was corrosion related or simply metal fatigue.  PVC resins polymerized with vinyl acetate were also tough on the machinery as it would give off acetic acid which also quickly attacked the stainless steel.  Think of this in terms of using vinegar and iron to make the iron stock stain.

[Roger B]

Nope. 12L14 only as far as I can remember.
Roger B.

[kentucky bucky]

I didn't think they did, but a fellow kept saying he had one. Thanks for the replies.

[jerrywh]

 I didn't think Douglas barrels were made of 12L14. I thought they were modern gun barrel steel. They didn't seem like 12L14 when I worked on them. They seemed harder than that.

[Dennis Glazener]

I didn't think Douglas barrels were made of 12L14. I thought they were modern gun barrel steel. They didn't seem like 12L14 when I worked on them. They seemed harder than that.

If I am not mistaken they were using 12L14 and that is the beginning of the controversy over 12L14 versus modern "gun steel". Douglas was involved in a lawsuit where one of their barrels failed (I think modern gun powder was involved).

I believe they may have switched to modern gun steel before they finally quit making muzzleloading barrels.

Didn't Ed Rayl buy their muzzleloading barrel operation? I know Ed has always used modern gun steel. It used to be 4140 but he later changed to a series beginning with a 6 if I remember correctly.
Dennis

[jerrywh]

 For a few years Douglas made some swamped barrels. I made one of my guns out of a Douglas 50 swamped. I let some guy talk me out of it and I am still sorry.

[bob in the woods]

I had an old Douglas .45 cal barrel that had 1/66 stamped on the end.  I actually used a scraper to smooth out the flats..it was soft.  I cut the end off and re crowned and that gun is still owned by the fellow I built it many years ago. It was and is a tack driver.
Having draw filed a few Rayl  barrels, there was no comparison.

[Mad Monk]

I didn't think Douglas barrels were made of 12L14. I thought they were modern gun barrel steel. They didn't seem like 12L14 when I worked on them. They seemed harder than that.

If I am not mistaken they were using 12L14 and that is the beginning of the controversy over 12L14 versus modern "gun steel". Douglas was involved in a lawsuit where one of their barrels failed (I think modern gun powder was involved).

I believe they may have switched to modern gun steel before they finally quit making muzzleloading barrels.

Dennis

Dennis,

From what I remember they simply quit making BP barrels.  They were using 12L14 and it was very soft.

The thing about "modern gunpowder".  Sam Fadala  did a lot of work with short started projectiles in copper tubes to show the thing about bulging then bursting.  The thing about parking a projectile some distance from the charge and then firing it sets up factors in the bore that simply are not seen in regular firings of the gun.  Including firings with very large charges used as proof loads.

T/C had contracted (a "grant") to a university to "prove" that only smokeless powder could blow up one of their gun barrels.   I found that report in one of the chemistry periodicals at work.  When I started to look at how the university group did their work I had all kinds of alarm bells going off in my head.  This work was around 1984.  In some tests they used du Pont black powder.  In other tests they used GOEX.  Now in 1984 the average shooter buying a new T/C rifle and getting handed a can of du Pont black powder over the counter were nil!  Then I took a close look at which powder they used for which test.  An instant Ah-Ha moment.
Their idea was that if smokeless had been used in the barrel, alone or mixed with black powder, they could identify this by flushing the barrel with acetone.  Then evaporate the acetone.  Then add diphenlamine with sulfuric acid.  The formation of a blue color then being proof positive that smokeless had been in the barrel.  This is simply the long used test to check for gunshot residue on a suspects hands in criminal investigations. Their idea was that black powder is soluble in water while smokeless is not.  And conversely smokeless is soluble in acetone while black powder is not.  Now that test is actually looking for lower oxides of nitrogen.  Generally found in smokeless bore residue.
Trouble is that if you ran that diphenlamine test on GOEX, out of Moosic, you got a stronger positive test than if you had actually used smokeless.  GOEx out of Moosic had chemical stability problems that involved a chemical reaction between the elemental sulfur and the potassium nitrate.  That reaction produced a lot of lower oxides of nitrogen in the powder before it was even loaded in the gun and fired.
I then confronted the university Phd chemical prof on this.  Got a bit of a snow job in return but he did not deny that I was right.  I had done similar tests daily in my real world day job.

Nobody wanted to own up to the fact that if you short start a projectile in a BP gun you may ring, bulge or burst the barrel.

The things that go on in the bore during a short started projectile firing are much like what goes on in water pipes when you slap the valve shut rapidly.  Or as I joked.  Here at home and at work we fight "water-hammer".  In the gun you get powder gas hammer.    Dixon had given me a large number of ML barrels to look at that went from simply ringed to bulged, split or a bunch of pieces.  I had no flintlocks with rings, bulges, splits or pieces.  The vent in the flintlock acts like a water-hammer suppressor in a piping system.

Bill K.

[Bob Roller]

I didn't think Douglas barrels were made of 12L14. I thought they were modern gun barrel steel. They didn't seem like 12L14 when I worked on them. They seemed harder than that.

If I am not mistaken they were using 12L14 and that is the beginning of the controversy over 12L14 versus modern "gun steel". Douglas was involved in a lawsuit where one of their barrels failed (I think modern gun powder was involved).

I believe they may have switched to modern gun steel before they finally quit making muzzleloading barrels.

Dennis

Dennis,

From what I remember they simply quit making BP barrels.  They were using 12L14 and it was very soft.

The thing about "modern gunpowder".  Sam Fadala  did a lot of work with short started projectiles in copper tubes to show the thing about bulging then bursting.  The thing about parking a projectile some distance from the charge and then firing it sets up factors in the bore that simply are not seen in regular firings of the gun.  Including firings with very large charges used as proof loads.

T/C had contracted (a "grant") to a university to "prove" that only smokeless powder could blow up one of their gun barrels.   I found that report in one of the chemistry periodicals at work.  When I started to look at how the university group did their work I had all kinds of alarm bells going off in my head.  This work was around 1984.  In some tests they used du Pont black powder.  In other tests they used GOEX.  Now in 1984 the average shooter buying a new T/C rifle and getting handed a can of du Pont black powder over the counter were nil!  Then I took a close look at which powder they used for which test.  An instant Ah-Ha moment.
Their idea was that if smokeless had been used in the barrel, alone or mixed with black powder, they could identify this by flushing the barrel with acetone.  Then evaporate the acetone.  Then add diphenlamine with sulfuric acid.  The formation of a blue color then being proof positive that smokeless had been in the barrel.  This is simply the long used test to check for gunshot residue on a suspects hands in criminal investigations. Their idea was that black powder is soluble in water while smokeless is not.  And conversely smokeless is soluble in acetone while black powder is not.  Now that test is actually looking for lower oxides of nitrogen.  Generally found in smokeless bore residue.
Trouble is that if you ran that diphenlamine test on GOEX, out of Moosic, you got a stronger positive test than if you had actually used smokeless.  GOEx out of Moosic had chemical stability problems that involved a chemical reaction between the elemental sulfur and the potassium nitrate.  That reaction produced a lot of lower oxides of nitrogen in the powder before it was even loaded in the gun and fired.
I then confronted the university Phd chemical prof on this.  Got a bit of a snow job in return but he did not deny that I was right.  I had done similar tests daily in my real world day job.

Nobody wanted to own up to the fact that if you short start a projectile in a BP gun you may ring, bulge or burst the barrel.

The things that go on in the bore during a short started projectile firing are much like what goes on in water pipes when you slap the valve shut rapidly.  Or as I joked.  Here at home and at work we fight "water-hammer".  In the gun you get powder gas hammer.    Dixon had given me a large number of ML barrels to look at that went from simply ringed to bulged, split or a bunch of pieces.  I had no flintlocks with rings, bulges, splits or pieces.  The vent in the flintlock acts like a water-hammer suppressor in a piping system.

Bill K.

The metallurgist that testified against Douglas Barrels use of 12L14 is on this forum.He told me he shook what was left of the man's hand that was injured when the barrel blew up.I was also told NO smokeless powder was involved and no evidence was found in the barrel or on the gun.
The plaintiff's attorney had to ask this question to verify the validity of the lawsuit. "does ANY steel mill or company recommend this particular steel for use in any kind of gun barrel?" The answer was "NO,not one".
Douglas Barrels had a big liability insurance policy that covered this nightmare and then went out of the ML game.
One of their long time employees told me that in addition to the blown barrel,the attitude of the ML makers and shooter was
that anything for a muzzle loader or work done on one had the be cheap as dirt. He told me of moans and groans from people who
thought $10 was too much to install and index a breech plug.
They have gotten along just fine minus these headaches and are still making fine,quality barrels for center fire guns.

Bob Roller

[JBJ]

Mad Monk's remarks about the possible "water hammer" action of a flintlock's vent inconjunction with the lack of splits, rings, etc, in the ML flintlock barrels he examined led me to the conclusion that the damaged barrels were from cpalocks. If the vent acts as a water-hammer preventer in a flintlock (seems plausible to me), why wouldn't a vented drum provide the same benefit in a caplock rifle? Just wondering.
J.B.

[bob in the woods]

Not a direct path to the vent.  The damage is done before the pressure is diverted.

[Daryl]

When the hammer is down on the fired cap in my 14 bore, the breech is technically sealed with the hammer holding the cap down on the nipple - at least momentarily - perhaps that is the reason for cap locks bulging or blowing. Seems to me, Taylor managed to bulge his TC flinter's barrel.

[Mad Monk]

At the time the barrel steel debate was raging the concern was what the lawyers could do to the ML business in general.  Brass powder flask blow ups were a problem and concern for the business.  Then there was the barrel failure thing.

I did see two flintlock rifle barrels that "failed".  But not in a way that would cause injury to the shooter.  There were questions on how some of these factory guns were put together.

With one brand of BP Ml rifles the barrels measured 15/16" across the muzzle.  They came in .45 caliber and .50 caliber.  Under ribs held to the barrel by screws in the bottom flat.  In the .45 caliber bores there was more metal between the bottom of the screw hole and the bore compared to the .50 caliber bores.  The shooter had short started a patched ball right over the front under rib screw hole.  When the gun was fired the stress was concentrated at the point of the hole.  A small split would form around the screw hole extended towards the muzzle and the breech.  The shooter would bore fouling around the split and return the gun for warranty service.
I should have explained a comment in my previous posting that I never saw a flintlock barrel split for any great length or come apart in pieces.  A few with faint rings in the bore but a straight on the outside showed no bulging of the barrel.  This thing about the small amount of metal between the bottom of under rib screw holes and short started balls seating directly over the hole was discussed in terms of a poor design.

Then there was the day at the range when that flintlock vent paid off.  I was shooting my .45 caliber flintlock Southern Poor Boy rifle.  I had seated the ball on the charge but did not take the ram rod out of the bore for some unknown reason.  Raised and fired the rifle.  Did the ram rod go sailing down range?  Nope!!!  The grain in the rod was at an angle.  The ramrod split and the two pieces then formed a wedge in the bore when the ball pushed on the two pieces.  So there I am watching the entire charge burn with flame, gases and small glowing grain being blown out the vent.  My brain was watching it as if it was going on in slow motion.  Later I wondered what the outcome would have been had it been one of my percussion guns.

This became the subject of numerous lengthy letters between myself and a buddy in Australia.  He then took a close look at the old antique percussion ignition English guns in his large collection of antiques.  He reported back that he had a number of guns with tiny holes drilled in the bolsters below the nipples.  Directed away from the shooter's hand.

So everything we did pointed to small vents in percussion ignition guns preventing burst barrels when the projectile was materially removed from the charge when the gun is fired.
 

[Mad Monk]

Forgot to  mention.
I then started to look at how much potential energy is in a given weight of black powder.  That info was found in a set of books known as the International Critical Tables from the early 1900s.  I used that information to calculate how much potential energy is in a given charge of black powder and then compare that to the kinetic energy imparted to the ball based on the muzzle velocity and ball weight.  That would give a percentage of energy conversion.  I was surprised to find that my ml guns were converting only about 8 to 13% of the potential energy to kinetic energy.  The gun not being that efficient in energy conversion.  But that can change when a short started projectile or the projectile is mired in bore fouling near the charge.  The potential energy becomes potential disaster.

[Mad Monk]

Did a little quick digging through files.

With the "standard" formulation black powder.
100 grains weight of black powder has a potential energy of 13,100 lb/ft.

[smylee grouch]

If you wanted to vent the bolster of a percussion gun, would you drill a hole about the same diameter as say a flintlock vent or would you start a little smaller?

[Bob Roller]

If you wanted to vent the bolster of a percussion gun, would you drill a hole about the same diameter as say a flintlock vent or would you start a little smaller?

Smaller,much smaller. I have drilled the clean out/prime screws for a drum with a .020 drill. I usually made
the screw instead of drilling the one that comes with the drum.

Bob Roller

[Goo]

Did a little quick digging through files.

With the "standard" formulation black powder.
100 grains weight of black powder has a potential energy of 13,100 lb/ft.

I want to qualify my comments as question rather than input as answers and I am not a mathematician or physicist but I have thought about this internal barrel ballistics pressure question for some time and my conclusion is it cannot be a matter of of just simple xxx lb/ft .    We know that at some point certain pressures are achieved but consider what is going on here. Initially a solid is trapped in a confined space which is then converted to gas through combustion.   The space in which this combusting solid being converted to gas increases in volume over time controlled by the bullet preventing preventing the gas from escaping too rapidly.   Then there is the vent hole through which pressure escapes over time as the projectile travels the length of the increasing confined space.  Plus there is resistance of the projectile against the wall of the barrel,  this resistance also must increase as the temperature of the steel barrel rises as well as the amount of residue builds in the barrel.   The powder is mostly not burning instantaneously so it must continue to burn as the space between the bullet and breech increases.  This powder buring for the duration of bullet traveling down the barrel , is it providing a steady push, increasing push or a decreasing push ? and in most cases the powder charge does not have complete combustion otherwise there would be no powder burn residue from the muzzle and vent hole.      To me this is a question is difficult at best to define and isolate all the factors at play and if possible describe mathematically but if could be done would be helpfull on many levels.  

[Mad Monk]

Goo,

With a charge of 3F in a patched ball gun the powder charge is totally consumed by the time the ball has moved about 3 inches from its initial point of rest.  With a charge of 2F the distance is about 6 inches.

The combustion residue that extends down the barrel is simply solid products of combustion that were suspended in the hot gases during the actual  combustion of the powder. 

Du Pont used to test powder burn rates in closed lead tubes.  This was done at GOEX right up to the early 1990s.  With fine granulations the flame spread rate through the powder in the tube could be as high as 2,000 feet per second.  Open burn trains of black powder burn very slowly.  But in closed tubes the burn rate is much faster.  This difference between an open powder train burn and one in a closed tube has to do with heat loss during the burning.  If the burning powder looses heat to the surrounding air the burn rate is slowed drastically.  In a closed tube there is a minimum of heat lost.

Regarding the thing about powder combustion residue form the breech to the muzzle.
I had noticed that in cold weather I would get less bore fouling than if the ambient temperatures were up near 80 to 100 degrees.  I began to measure bore fouling as a percentage of the weight of the powder charged.  Then how it was distributed in the length of the bore.  Then collect samples from the bore and look at that material under a microscope.  The solid residue particles can remain suspended in the gases and be ejected from the muzzle still suspended in those gases.  This is actually what we see as smoke when the gun fires.  I went so far as to shoot through big funnels to collect that smoke and look closely at it.  So as the ambient temperature rises the solid particles in the gases tend to grow in size through agglomeration.  The then larger particles cannot remain suspended and settle on the bore walls.  A can of powder that gave me 2.5% of the original charge as bore fouling at 40 degrees ambient temperature gave me 15% of the original charge weight at 90 degrees ambient temperature.  Under the microscope I could see where the particles had been fused together.  The mass under the microscope looked like a bunch of glass beads joined together in groups.

Way back in one of Sam Fadala's black powder manuals he had a pressure graph showing a comparison of black powder and smokeless powder in a shot gun.  The velocity of the shot was the same in both firings.  The black powder pressure curve was similar to that of the smokeless just stretched out with a lower peak pressure.

[FlintFan]

They were using 12L14 and it was very soft.

It's also important to note they were using extruded octagon 12L14 in their barrels.  That is a fact that most people are not aware of.  Douglas' problems with burst barrels probably had more to do with flaws introduced during the extrusion process rather than with the 12L14 itself.  

[Mad Monk]

They were using 12L14 and it was very soft.

It's also important to note they were using extruded octagon 12L14 in their barrels.  That is a fact that most people are not aware of.  Douglas' problems with burst barrels probably had more to do with flaws introduced during the extrusion process rather than with the 12L14 itself.  

The same was/is true of the Italian ML and the Spanish ML barrels.

[bob in the woods]

Now, that is something I didn't know !  Extruded oct. 12L14 ....who would have thought 

[Goo]

Goo,

With a charge of 3F in a patched ball gun the powder charge is totally consumed by the time the ball has moved about 3 inches from its initial point of rest.  With a charge of 2F the distance is about 6 inches.



  A can of powder that gave me 2.5% of the original charge as bore fouling at 40 degrees ambient temperature gave me 15% of the original charge weight at 90 degrees ambient temperature.  Under the microscope I could see where the particles had been fused together.  The mass under the microscope looked like a bunch of glass beads joined together in groups.

.       



I find this fascinating I am especially pleased to know the powder is consumed within such a small distance as three to six inches depending upon the coarseness of the powder.   As far as the ratio of residue and temperature is it due to humidy?     Assuming cold air holds less moisture than warm ?