Today's safe barrels?

[wattlebuster]

I feel safer shooting a 12L14 barrel than driving down the freeway or walking any big city street. I think I will take my chances with my flintguns. An yes I have been called stupid before.

[nosrettap1958]

Notice the dates of these failures. Back then guys were abusing these guns and many had the mind set that black powder cannot burst modern steel no matter how much you pour into it.

Some of you older shooters know exactly what I'm talking about. 

[bob in the woods]

I sure do miss Don Getz.  Would have been interesting to hear what he had to say .
Many years ago I decided not to build percussion rifles. My interests leaned to flintlocks, but there was a small voice in my head telling me that having a vent was a lot safer than not having one. I also embraced round balls rather than conicals. After having a maxi ball work itself off the powder charge while hunting, I stopped using them.  I have a .54 I built back in the late 90's that has literally thousands of rounds through it.  Perhaps I can get it x-rayed one day [ friends with access    ]  and see if there are any signs of impending doom.   Anyone done that on a barrel which has seen a lot of use ?

[Dphariss]

Notice the dates of these failures. Back then guys were abusing these guns and many had the mind set that black powder cannot burst modern steel no matter how much you pour into it.

Some of you older shooters know exactly what I'm talking about.

There have been others. I used to have a photo supplied by someone on this site but I left it on the PM page and when the site updated it went away at least I can't find it in any of the archives. Guy lost his left hand with a fowler barrel failed at the wedding bands (stress riser).
It was not an old photo and the guy told me he thought by the wedding band cuts it was made by someone who's barrels had "never failed".

Dan

[Dphariss]

Many modern CF rifle cartridges have SAAMI pressure levels DOUBLE at least anything that can be made with BP. In excess of 65000 psi for the newer stuff like the various WSSMs and the new Nosler cartridges. BP in closed bomb tests is limited to 100k PSI. I don't think BP regardless of how its loaded in the barrel the projectile spaced to where ever will burst a mil spec 4150 barrel.
THEN back in the old days, perhaps before or just after WW-II some ML shooters decided to blow up a Springfield Rifle Musket barrel. They could not. Loaded till it blew powder out the barrel, no blow. This is a SKELP WELDED IRON BARREL BTW. They could not blow it.  So everyone then "knew" it was impossible to blow one with BP. But they still had failures. I suspect, from reports, that they are still happening but its not something people talk about. But of course, since its impossible to blow one up it must be some error by the victim. So the makers are protected by the "handloader defense". Guy screwed up the loading obviously. its worked so far in every case that I have heard of going to court. So the makers have no worries.
Why are barrel makers using 12L14? Lack of skill and/or experience I suppose is part of it, the 41xx series steels are very difficult to machine, expensive and harder to come by. There are people who can make cut rifled ML barrels from 4150 that are as perfect as any I ever saw or checked. So I don't know why others can't or won't. I had one get really POed when I told him I could furnish GB quality steel.... But then I could ask why the breeching on so many "breeched" barrels is so sloppy too.....
Anyone ever pull a breech plug and REALLY look? Probably not. The people I know who have were disappointed and not well pleased...... Just more "workmanship" foisted on the uninformed. People should trust by verify, especially before inletting a barrel and tang.
Pressure Info?
Check page 22 for the beginning of PSI with a transducer) data for modern CF rifle cartridges in this PDF  http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/publications/download/206.pdf
Its all industry standard stuff. Some of the peak pressures might surprise you.
Dan

[Smoketown]

Since the creation of Youtube, there have been a number of people who have recorded their attempts to blow up a number of things.

A quick Google search on 'blown rifle barrels' also brings up a number of images.   


Cheers,
Smoketown

[moleeyes36]

Realizing there are many things that can affect pressure (like flintlock v. percussion), but does anyone know what would be the approximate pressure range for a patched round ball in a rifle ahead of a typical powder charge?  Just as an example, 80 grains of ffg behind a .495 round ball.  This may be too general of a question, but it would be good to know.

Mole Eyes

[Dphariss]

Realizing there are many things that can affect pressure (like flintlock v. percussion), but does anyone know what would be the approximate pressure range for a patched round ball in a rifle ahead of a typical powder charge?  Just as an example, 80 grains of ffg behind a .495 round ball.  This may be too general of a question, but it would be good to know.

Mole Eyes

Lyman did pressure tests long ago and published them in their Blackpowder Manual. ALL are FAR below the tensile rating of any steel.
Then we have Col Hanger telling us that he was shooting 1/2 ball weight of powder through an American rifle without the slightest recoil in the 1770s. So apparently this was not dangerous in the, supposedly, weaker iron barrels. This tells us that heavy loads are not a modern invention. Not to mention British officers being killed at ranges to 300 yards tells me it is unlikely they were shooting loads making less the 1700-1900 fps. The wounds sometimes described by British officers in their journals and letters also indicate high velocity.
I would also point out that its not the pressure so much but the speed with which it applied that can burst barrels. Ductile barrels are far less susceptible to this than brittle barrels. If the pressure rise in rapid enough, in the modern world this is most often seen when light charges of grey powder related to capacity are used. However, BP being a surface burning propellant is not "fast" in the way that a modern grey powder like Bullseye is in relation to something like 4831 or as any grey powder can be if the powder "flashes over" a too light charge in a cartridge case. While BP increases in burn rate according to the surface area of the charge and has characteristics of both a "fast" powder and a slow powder switching a load from FF to FFF (which has about double the surface area) does not double the pressure or "detonate" it is thought happens with some grey powder "events", it does still increase the strain on the barrel to some extent through the faster pressure rise. However, in a rifle shooting a patched round ball the projectile moves away from the powder before the charge is completely consumed  which tends to reduce the initial pressure. The same is true of bullet guns as well but the inertia is much greater.  Though in the "The Gun and Its Development" by W.W. Greener there is a photo of a English SS sporting rifle burst by "fine grained foreign powder". The barrel shows a classic brittle fracture with no significant deformation which tells me it was more material related than caused by fine grained powder.  The barrel broke much like the fragmentation seen with grey powder "detonation" events.  Though I have a friend who reported pressure signs in a small capacity 35 caliber BPCR when he tried to get the velocity up with FFFF using relatively heavy bullets.
Back in the day there was a propellant powder granulation called "Revolver" it was used in foil and paper cartridges for percussion revolvers and carried over at least until the smokeless era. It was very fine grained like Swiss FFFF or perhaps even "Null B". I know it was used in late BP era small self contained revolver cartridges. It obviously did not blow up revolvers and the 38 S&W load I pulled only had about 1/2-2/3 of the powder space filled.
Smokeless? I have read, but cannot cite the source, that in South America there were ML shotguns designed to the used with smokeless. The problem here in my mind is ignition. Grey powder is very hard to "light" compared to black and under ignition of the charge is a MAJOR concern in avoiding pressure events with this powder. In the WW-I era the primers all had their compound volumes doubled as people started to reload with grey powder and under ignition was a treat to safety.
We can bandy about pressure levels all we want but some research into BP pressures detailed in the 19th and 20th c. show that its just not possible to generate a pressure level high enough to burst a modern barrel steel barrel with BP. AND "modern" barrel steel alloys have been in use for over 100 years in the "real" world.  But ALL of these are more difficult to cut grooves in than a cold rolled free machining steel. Iron, iron alloy lower carbon than 1010 steel, even when compared to 1010-1018 is very "weak" yet it was the preferred material for American military muskets and rifles until circa 1869+- a few years even though its lower "yield" numbers are getting close to or match the PSI generated by BP, with heavy loads and long in relation to the bore bullets.  If we compare hot rolled 1018 to cold rolled 1018 you will find that the cold rolled is much stronger on paper but when exposed to internal pressure its WEAKER than the hot rolled since its made BRITTLE by the cold rolling process and brittle steels are less resistant to internal pressure. The hot rolled material is harder to machine than 1010-1012 alloys due to the increased carbon, 1018 cold rolled is easier to machine because its brittle. It wears tools faster as well and produces a rougher finish and when grooves are cut may require more time and perhaps even different cutting edges than free machining steels. 12L14 and similar with the high levels of lead and other lubricant metals are specifically designed to machine easy but have very poor tolerance to internal pressure due to inclusions caused by the lubricant metals and cold rolling induced cracks. Remember the old blacksmith admonitions against cold working iron and steel?  This produces FLAWS in the material.
When people don't want to listen to metallurgists who have looked into the problem or those that have read the research or consider the written statements by STEEL MAKERS its hard to make any headway.
Forgive any typos I have things to do....
Dan

[nosrettap1958]

If you notice that ll of the court case witnesses stated that the rifle was correctly loaded prior to the time of the burst. What is not stated, as it could not be allowed in court is, was the barrel correctly loaded during its entire life?

Would not an incorrectly loaded barrel first incur stress then develop fatigue and then exhaustion to a point it burst? Or does the barrel just let go all of a sudden?

[Joe S]

It seems to me that we fall into three groups:

1. People who think 12L14 is fine for black powder barrels
2. People who will use 12L14 barrels, but appreciate the steel’s shortcomings and would buy better barrels if they were available.
3. People who won’t use 12L14 barrels at all.

I fall into the second group.  My opinion, based on available data, is that 12L14 is safe for normal use, but could fail by brittle fracture if the gun is misloaded, or some other bad thing happens.  When I engineer things, I always try to look at the worst case, and design a device that will not fail catastrophically if things go wrong.

Double loads and short started balls are common enough that these things should be considered to be expected use errors.  Gun barrels should be designed and tested to withstand common misuse. 

Furthermore, steel is not completely uniform, and flaws occur. As Dan can attest, individual barrels need to be subjected to quality control testing, even with “certified gun barrel steel”.  I have no reason to believe that current barrel manufacturers do any testing at all.

So, what to do?  Those of us who want better barrels need to convince barrel manufacturers that there is a market for more expensive, but better gun barrels.  Otherwise, nothing will change.

[Standing Bear]

I guess we could all buy foreign ML barrels that have proof marks.  Or send our barrels to England for proofing.
TC

[Dphariss]

If you notice that ll of the court case witnesses stated that the rifle was correctly loaded prior to the time of the burst. What is not stated, as it could not be allowed in court is, was the barrel correctly loaded during its entire life?

Would not an incorrectly loaded barrel first incur stress then develop fatigue and then exhaustion to a point it burst? Or does the barrel just let go all of a sudden?

When a unsuitable steel is used the loading is not all that relevant. Look at the pressures involved and the strength of the steels. Supposed strengths.
I have 45 caliber Douglas bullet blank in the shop, 4140. I could turn it and cut it octagonal with fairly thin walls, if I wanted to waste a few hours. But its not worth my time to prove something I am already confidant of for a group who would not care anyway. After all I have seen photos of acDouglas ML barrel  that withstood a stuck ball that the owner got POed about and shot it out. But I don't know if this barrel was made before or after the Douglas blow ups. If after it may have been stress relieved which would have made it less brittle. later Douglas barrels did have a scale much like a hot rolled bar has. Don King used to "pickle" them to remove it since they were really hard on files, the scale being at hard or harder than the file.  But maybe it was a "good" bar of 12L14 and the barrels that failed came from the same flawed bar or perhaps bars from the same lot? We will not find out at this date.
All we know for certainis that the steel company that developed "fatigue proof" stated it was not suitable for gun barrels back when this was a hot issue in the old Buckskin Report.

Dan

[Dphariss]

Somewhere in this thread someone asked why there were no reports of blown barrels.
The only magazine that published these to any extent was The Buckskin Report. Things like this drive off advertisers. Telling the truth about this an other things broke the magazine.  So don't expect to see this in Muzzle Blasts or the American Rifleman or Muzzleloader.  When SAKO had a rash of failures, with factory ammo, from using free machining stainless in modern high power barrels I don't recall any reports of the accidents or the injuries in any publication. You MIGHT see an ad by the maker telling people of a recall. SAKO recalled claiming they got a bad lot of steel. If ti was free machining it certainly was "bad".  There were no writeups of the Remington shotgun barrel failures either and people WERE hurt and Reminton lost a lot of money. Anyone see any reports in any gun magazines?  I saw photos of a Remington SS M700 that split from muzzle back about 10 inches on the WWW. If course everyone said it must have had mud in the barrel
In general its not something you see. I have been told that S&W has a ROOM full of blown revolvers, almost all with underloads. But I have never seen a write up on this either.  Unless it was to rightly (in this case) blame the handloader and I don't recall seeing this.
Handloading lets ALL makers off the hook. This includes every load fired in a ML. So they are safe. The jury will look at the tensile numbers and think it must be OK since BP will not get close to this. And "everybody" knows they will fail if loaded wrong.....

Dan

[nosrettap1958]

Yes, but 12L14 steel has been used to make a lot for barrels. Correct?

Do we see all sorts of barrels exploding? No.

That, in itself, needs to be explained.

[Joe S]

Dan, we are way past the days when we had to rely on magazines for information.  I believe that any ALR member who had a barrel blow would say something about it.  Other people who visit other sites would as well, and word would get around.  There is just no way to keep something like that secret anymore.

Considering ALR alone, we have over 3,000 members using this site.  If you counted in the people we know and shoot with, ALR has direct access to perhaps 10,000 or 20,000 active shooters, or maybe even more. 

I think the reason that we don't see any recent reports of 12L14 barrels failing is because they are working well under normal circumstances. 

That said, I would buy better barrels if I could get them.

Standing Bear - You can do the same proof test yourself if you want to. 

My personal opinion is that proof marks are meaningless with modern barrels. Why I think that requires a long explanation that we could take up in another thread.

[Stoner creek]

Remember the old timers were welding up wrought iron barrels, no x-ray machines, no science as we now know it. They trusted their skill and knew what their barrels would do. I'm as comfortable shooting a 12L14 barrel as any other. Been shooting one for 38 years with no issues. This includes doing stupid stuff like short starting and double charging.

[Mauser06]

If 12L14 is easy on tooling and easy to machine......just how long of a back log and how much would a barrel cost made of a better steel? 

Right now $250-300 and 6-12 months is a ballpark figure... couldn't imagine what good barrels would cost...or how much longer the wait would be.   


If better steel is hard to machine how come millions of barrels are made from it every year at a lower cost??    That's a fact I have trouble making sense of. 



Till this site, I had no idea about the subject.   


Like was said, just on this site alone...if we have 3,000 active members we probably have 10,000+ barrels we shoot regularly..just our active members and guns being fired. 

But also like was said, it'd be peace of mind to have something that didn't cause concern. Dovetail a hair too deep...double loads etc are accidents that "happen".   

My biggest concern now is buying a used muzzleloader.   I know what mine have been subjected to.  Buying a used one, you don't know. 

[hanshi]

This thread really caught my attention as I seldom gave a thought as to what grade of steel went into the barrels I shoot.  I know little of gun barrel metallurgy but have always been careful when it came to loading. 

It sort of begs the question at this point; what affect does barrel thickness/weight have on the safety of of BP barrels?  ML barrels are quite heavy compared with smokeless tubes; and the swamped barrels have various weights "suitable" to caliber.  Does more steel translate to stronger barrels; even those made from "inferior" steel?

[JCKelly]

I am no longer either a very active shooter or builder.
So my own solution is I am s-l-o-w-l-y re-working a Traditions "Kentucky" into something resembling an Indian-used Leman.

Considering that the Italians and the Spanish are both able to make barrels of a ductile steel, damnifino why it's not done here. Inertia, I'd guess.

In My Own Humble Opinion- Please-Do-Not-Sue-Me-When-You-Kill-Yourself-Anyway, a muzzle loading rifle needs a ductile steel, more or less like a good (NOT Remington) modern shotgun barrel. Good quality bar stock is available from distributors in modest quantities. Examples might be 4130 (--30, not 4140 or 4150) and 8620. These grades are commonly used in aerospace and custom frame jobs for things on wheels. Ed Rayle, whom I do not know, is said to use 8620. I have no idea why he chose this grade, but I do applaud his choice.

More metallurgy - thick 12L14 is not better than thin. A Fracture Toughness expert, which I am not, might even say  thicker is worse. You cannot X-ray, magnetic particle inspect, proof test or Voodoo this stuff into something that can reliably withstand an explosion.

The last rifle I built, back in Model T days I think, was in Golden Age Kentucky style with pierced, engraved patchbox and raised carving. Actually it was a pretty horrid job, compared to what I see on this site. I used a .45 caliber 7/8" Douglas barrel. At the time Douglas said to cut of a couple inches from the muzzle of the barrels they sold. So I had a piece. Being a curious metallurgist - wonder what they meant by calling it a "...manganese steel"?  I examined my left over piece under the microscope, said to myself $@##!!&^%* this just can not be what I think it is. Can it? Bootlegged a fairly complete chemical analysis from a lab with whom I had  good experience. Yeah. It was 12L14.

Stopped shooting muzzle loaders then, early 1980's. The only thing that got me back into it was a Pedersoli trade gun, with a heat-treated, low sulfur medium carbon steel barrel. Being a picky individual I find I really do like a rear sight and some twisty grooves in the bore. Passed that gun on to a better home.

My own rifle is in the basement now with breechplug removed whilst I ponder what decent barrel might be available? I have kept up with reasonably current barrel failures, some in-line &c. At this point I do not care to use a barrel of anyone's free-machining steel of any grade, no matter how it is certified. Hate to cut  my long rifle thing down for one of those ~32" Spanish barrels. Doanno if a 7/8 x 42" can be had from Rayle.

Y'all don't much care for what I have to say about the barrel on your truly artistic flint rifle. Neither did I, when I found out how mine was made, and how that maker's barrels had performed for others (changing their careers, one might say). At the time they were almost the only game in town. Guy named Paris in Pennsylvania did make swamped barrels, believe he sold his shop to the late Mr. Getz. Who, by the way, I did respect although we had some disagreement about metals.

So you do have my sympathy.

[Elnathan]

Doanno if a 7/8 x 42" can be had from Rayle.

Rayle can make pretty much anything, I think. He can certainly make a straight barrel of that size.

Edited to add:

Examples might be 4130 (--30, not 4140 or 4150) and 8620.

I was under the impression that 4150 GBQ was the standard by which all other steels are judged.

[rtadams]

5-10-17

JC Kelly,

How would you rate 1117L stress relieved or 1137L with respect to the best steel for black powder rifle barrels. I am assuming that 8620 or 4130 are acceptable steels to use for black powder as per your previous comments.
Best Regards,

Robert T Adams

[hudson]

Have been following the discussion in barrel steel for years, something I haven’t seen mentioned lately mentioned that lead in the alloy has been replace with sulfur. Lead is supposed have far less problems. I worked in a steel mill for fifteen years retired about ten years ago. When I enquired about led in alloys was told the stopped using it years ago. I wish I had spent more of my break time in the lab. Pore guy upstairs in an old brick building all by himself with little to do except run samples from the melt shop now and then.

[JCKelly]

Elnathan - 4150 rifle barrel quality is a great choice for machine guns.

Muzzle loaders do not, in my opinion, need such a hard, wear resistant steel.

Muzzle loaders, again in my opinion, do need a DUCTILE steel. They are apt to be fired with considerable air space between powder & ball. Yes, we all know to mark our ramrods but then, who has never been distracted while loading with his short starter? Or maybe left who knows what air space?

I do not know why this happens but I do know that an air space between powder and ball has been known to cause problems for some time now.  That English artillery expert, forget his name, wrote a nice article on Brown Bess muskets blowing up for this reason, about 1760 in Proceedings of the Royal Society. I read it about 1965 in Philadelphia, but have no access to Proc Roy Soc locally.

Anyway, Banish Thee the term "tensile strength" from thy vocabulary.
What matters in your muzzle loader is enough ductility that the thing will bulge, rather than shatter, when something Bad happens.

As we are all subject to human error, and explosives do very surprizing things on occasion, Bad Things are a'gonna happen.

Just a side note. In the chemical industry occasionally one wishes to make a large strong vessel, for which some grade of carbon steel would suit. Except steel would rust away in the concoction they are producing. So, make the whole thing out of Hastelloy C-276 (Cr Ni Mo &c) which co$t$.
Solution - clad a plate of Hastelloy onto your steel. Steel makes the vessel strong, Hastelloy will survive the nasty chemicals inside.
Decades ago Lukens Steel did this by hot rolling the two plates together, so they stuck.
Now they use "explosive cladding". One lays one plate down on the very flat ground, lays the second plate on top. A little wooden fence is built around the edges so one may put a nice layer of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil on top. With a cap, maybe several caps - At One End. Fire the thing, BOOM Now you have clad plate, might need to flatten it out a bit.

Except every once in a long while, for reasons no one has chosen to explain to me, the explosive wave sorta gets ahead of itself, travels along the plate and bounces off that weak little wooden fence. When that wave comes back to meet the main one, well, BOOOOM Now you have a bunch of pieces to pick up. Bye, bye plate.

I have yet to meet or read about the human being who knows why this happens. There may well be several different reasons, black powder acts one way, smokeless another, ammonium nitrate & fuel oil a third, or maybe they all have several ways of causing trouble.

All I do know is that explosives occasionally behave in ways we'd prefer to think they do not.

If it happens in that tube you are holding, better hope the steel is ductile enough to stretch a bit rather than crack into pieces. Along with the odd body part.

No, tensile strength is not the most important thing. Strictly speaking something called "Fracture Toughness" is what matters. That is a bit esoteric for me, let us just say you need ductility as measured in a tensile test. More importantly, good resistance to snapping when struck suddenly in the presence of a notch.

I will not knowingly use any free machining steel barrel. Yes, I have in the past. This whole discussion has inspired me to re-educate myself a bit.

Ya wonder why you've not heard of a few thousand modern barrels failing? Read Hatcher's Notebook Yes, actually read it.

[Elnathan]

Elnathan - 4150 rifle barrel quality is a great choice for machine guns.

Muzzle loaders do not, in my opinion, need such a hard, wear resistant steel.

Muzzle loaders, again in my opinion, do need a DUCTILE steel. They are apt to be fired with considerable air space between powder & ball. Yes, we all know to mark our ramrods but then, who has never been distracted while loading with his short starter? Or maybe left who knows what air space?

Just to clarify, are you saying that 4150 is unsuitable for muzzleloaders, or that it is just overkill?

[oldtravler61]

  Don't know about everybody else. But me thinks we've beat this subject to death. No matter what a barrels made of now. You can't rule out the idiot that doesn't know what there doing or is just careless.  Just my 2 Cents.  Oldtravler