• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades
  • Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

DOM Tubing that being used for barrels

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Wow...dug up an old thread for sure. I salute your willingness to invest your own personal money, time, knowledge, and skills in conducting such tests, then sharing them freely with the ML community. Some very serious proof testing / before & after measuring there too.
:hatsoff:
 
I like a tapered round barrel and it was profiled for a fowler. A shorter barrel would probably have more powder being burned in the air, a longer barrel gives more length for the powder to burn before it escapes. In theory giving it more time to impart it's energy to the ball. As it was, so much fire was escaping the end of the barrel it was eroding the test plank some.
 
I would short start a ball about 8 inches or so from the breech and see how well it performs. I would like to see if it splits at the "seam" or will it just put a "bulge" in the barrel like we see when that happens sometimes.
 
Back in the 80's when we were just rediscovering smoothbores, quite a few guns were built using what we called at the time "high pressure tubing". I assume that this is the same as DOM today. As far as I know those guns are still shooting and none of them ever failed.

I think most of the recent controversy has been over US made seamless high pressure tubing versus tubing made elsewhere.

Thank you for doing this test. It is always good to see real life tests instead of armchair opinions.

Many Klatch
 
Thanks for doing and sharing that test.
Some will say it is not 100% definitive but, then, nothing is ever 100%.
Your results are, at the least, reassuring.
For others, the use of DOM is still a :shake:
Just like the machinable steel used in Douglas barrels. To this day, many will claim it is dangerous. I have to wonder how many tens of jillions of Douglas barrels are in use and still winning championship. :hmm:
 
I personally know of two catastrophic gun failures; HOWEVER, they were both modern guns. I have no personal knowledge of any muzzleloaders experiencing a catastrophic failure. There is so much pro and con debate over the use of tubing or DOM. But, I have yet to hear firsthand accounts, see credible data or statistic regarding failures. Any gun can be made to fail, and any gun can fail. Considering that guns of all types are made all over the world using a myriad of materials, one has to question. It seems illogical to think that today’s DOM or seamless tubing would be inferior to barrels produced in the 17th,18th,or 19th centuries.
 
colorado clyde said:
It seems illogical to think that today’s DOM or seamless tubing would be inferior to barrels produced in the 17th,18th,or 19th centuries.

Except that the latter were made to be gun barrels and the former are not per se, you could be right.
 
Nearly every barrel back in the old days was proof fired. A designated powder load and a designated ammunition setup was used. This procedure is essentially the same as the procedure still used in Europe under the International standard. For example: Having your barrel proof fired at the proofing house is in Germany no problem. Fill out form, mail barrel with payment in, they proof it, if passed it will be stamped, then they send barrel back to you. With muzzleloader barrels, the vent liner or drum must be installed. With modern guns, the complete gun is checked for safety and function.
Back in the old days, the drilled and dimensioned (and sometimes rifled) barrel blank got the end threads cut, a special proof firing breech plug was used in order not to have to drill a vent from the side. This is described in the book "Steinschlossjaegerbuechsen", where they cite old texts describing the steps of building a gun. Jim Chambers carries it with English translation for the people who need a translation. They also describe the translation of a Russian document from 1735, which contains essentially all the points including hollow base balls (pre-minie balls). They describe stuff illustrated very well. I need to get my hands on the full German translation of that Russian text from the Academy Of Sciences in St. Petersburg.
I know of a barrel maker using seamless tubes who hand files down the barrel to the correct old profiles of originals. But he double proof fires every barrel before it is sold or used.
 
I'm also curious about the diameter of the diameter of test barrel in the area of the breech.

No mention was made of the material the test barrel was made from.

As there are a number of different materials available and the strengths of them are quite different, what was this one made from?
 
The tube I chose was ASTM A513 1020/1026 Mechanical grade tube 1"OD x .188 Wall x .625 ID. The profile from the breech, first 12" is 1", the next 8" taper smoothly down to .745 OD and run the remaining 28". I have cleaned up the outside of the barrel and tomorrow I am going to steel wool the bore and, run a diesel test to see if weld failure occurred. Diesel will seep through and reveal cracks that magnaflux will not. If there are none I will probably try Armakiller's idea, remark the barrel and short start a ball with 200 grns. If it survives that repeat the diesel test to see if any flaws opened up and probably split it in half lengthwise to have a looksee from the inside.
 
RB, your thorough / professional testing on this DOM tubing should be considered for a permanent place in the member archives, or a sticky at the top of SMOOTHBORES, or something
:hatsoff:
 
razorbritches said:
The tube I chose was ASTM A513 1020/1026 Mechanical grade tube 1"OD x .188 Wall x .625 ID. The profile from the breech, first 12" is 1", the next 8" taper smoothly down to .745 OD and run the remaining 28".
Good post. Thanks for the info. My smoothbore has a 46" barrel of that tubing, 1026, 1" OD x .188 wall x .625 ID. My profile is similar to yours, first 12" octagonal and straight, then about 1" of wedding band transitioning to round, smooth taper down to .8125" over the next 10", straight to the muzzle. That means I have the same wall as yours in the octagonal section, but .09" instead of your .06" in the round section.

It hardly ever blows up on me.

Spence
 
He would like the tubing. He would thread it, install "proof fire breech plug" and then proof fire it. If it was good after proof number two with no visible damage, he would continue building a gun from it. Essentially, every handforged "pipe" was proof fired. A barrelsmith team was only paid for "pipes" that passed the proof firing. So you better knew what you were doing, or no payment for a good portion of hard work.
 
This morning I cleaned her up and remarked her, then run a diesel test. No visible seepage. Reinstalled the breech and loaded it with 100 grns of 3ff and short started a prb 10" down the barrel and fired it. There was no measurable change. Then I loaded it with 200 grns and fired it with a short started prb 10" down. There was no measurable change. Needless to say I was surprised I thought 200 grns would have made a showing. I unbreeched her and run another diesel test. No visible seepage. So I loaded it with 200 grns and 2 prbs short started 10" down the barrel. There was a drastic and very visible change as you can see.


You can see the 2 prbs moved about 2" as she opened up and split all the way back to about 16 1/2". Oddly enough there was no measurable deformation at 16" or from there all the way to the breech. It did not split on the weld though. I buffed it enough to reveal the weld for you to see.



So then I went to the breech area and cut 2 sample pieces for standard weld bend testing. I made my cuts so the bend would be on the weld area, straightened them out and, buffed them with a sanding disc. Then made a weld cap bend and a weld root bend.





You can see the cap bend passed easily, even after having been hammered flat. The root bend however cracked but the way it cracked tells us something. I decided to go on and break it to see if there were any lack of fusion in the weld, there was none. Nor did it break cleanly on a single line as it might do if it were improperly annealed during manufacture. It tore through the weld and the parent metal on each side of the weld indiscriminately. The root bend was basically turned inside out, had I rounded the corners or annealed it I think it would have bent cleanly. Here is a pic of the break blown up so you can see it.



I almost did not make these final tests I was satisfied by the first round but, I think it gave me alot of very worthwhile information. As for myself DOM has shown itself to be a very durable material.
 
RB
Good work and thanks for sharing.

Testing is where opinion and theory hit the cold light of reality. :hmm:

You are correct there was no sense in testing a perfectly good barrel to destruction but if you must; your approach was sound.
 
I was strongly tempted to say the heck with all this testing and build a gun. In the end having subjected it to 400 grns and 2 pbrs and not knowing what stresses that put on the barrel, I decided to test to destruction. I am glad I did I learned alot but, knowing what I know now I would have built a gun.
 
Back
Top