bessbattlesystem said:
Dan
don't many of the barells offered on the american custom guns come from china??
And also are they not also un proofed and un vented when bought?? But I suppose because if its assembeled by a American It is then magically better??
Why do folk focus on the ONE yes ONE no name indian gun, but only have a tiny blurb about the Piedersoli???
Folk call some of the indian guns sloppy, but In the Loyalist ones I have its just NOT the case.
I have owned and shot guns , many guns since I was a small child.
I never understood the mindset that has to spend more money for something of just as good or maybe worse then affordable quality piece, just to have a designer label, is so poshly eliteist.
Should I spend thousands and have a stranger assemble my gun so I can smugly look down my nose at people?
Or should I spend a couple hundred dollars and work on it myself and be far more happy with a no name?
I go on and on about Loyalist and I will continue to support them
My long land is a well built piece, far better all around the Italian and track of the wolf ones I have seen and handeled.
I wouldent sell mine,
and to follow the car analogy if my long land was a car it would be a 63 olds 98 with a perfectly tuned 398- 4 barell.
Cheers
Rob
Ignorance is bliss I guess.
You are assuming the Indian made guns are properly assembled from properly made parts when you compare them to guns made by a gunsmith who uses quality parts, knows how to and cares to carefully fit breechplugs and other critical assemblies.
Any fool can screw in a breech plug or drill a vent.
Doing these things in a manner that produces a product with long term reliability and safety requires more knowledge.
I would point out that the breeching of the barrel is not in question though I am sure its sloppily done as well.
I question the method of manufacture and the materials the barrel was made of.
If the barrels are not properly made of the proper material it is IMPOSSIBLE to make them safe. Proving such a barrel with a heavy load proves nothing and might actually increase the chance of failure at a later date with a service charge.
Remington lost a lawsuit about 15 years ago over using 1140M steel in shotgun barrels. 1140M is apply strong (probably 300-400% on paper) and will pass proof. But it work hardens. Shotgun barrels flex when fired. Once the steel had been flexed enough to become sufficiently brittle it BROKE. People were hurt. Remington was sued. They use better steel now.
The pictures of the Indian made barrel I saw indicated no stretch. Good barrels will stretch before they break with BP. If there is no bulge something is wrong. This barrel *APPEARS* to have had a weak section or seam that failed without significantly bulging FIRST. I don't have the photos handy. *Assuming* this was the case it means the barrel was likely made from "seamless" tubing. Seamless tubing is not recommended for gun barrels. The effect of gun powder, either smokeless or BP, is far different than the stress applied by water, steam or hydraulics. Generally there is no shock loading of the part. Shock loading greatly reduces the barrels ability to withstand pressure and can produce failure at pressures far lower than would be the case if the pressure were applied at a even slightly slower rate.
This, and the fact that peoples heads are within inches of the point of maximum pressure, dictate that barrels be carefully made of suitable material.
DOM and even welded tubing/pipe is suitable for hydraulics and other pressure applications.
Barrel steel for low pressure applications need not be anything special. Low carbon will work for cartridges like non-magnum handguns etc. HOWEVER, the steel must be carefully made at the mill, it must have a low occurrence of inclusions and other flaws, it must be of a uniform hardness, no hard spots
and the barrel must be carefully made the breech carefully installed and it should proved.
HOWEVER...
Proving is only valid to find IMPERFECTIONS. It cannot "prove" a barrel made from unsuitable materials is safe. Look up the Remington 1140M. These barrels all went through Remingtons manufacturing process and still failed in service anyway. There have been a rash of 416 stainless barrel failures in modern firearms recently indicating that perhaps this material is not as suitable as had been thought.
I suspect that had the Indian musket been proved properly it might well have failed in proof. But this is not a sure thing since the barrel was almost certainly made from tubing. It actually takes very little to contain BP pressures in the context of this discussion, shooting blanks that were not heavily compacted. So a failure shooting blanks should be a red flag. It means the barrel was very weak.
Gun barrel failure is a SERIOUS event. It almost always maims or kills someone. Failures are thankfully rare. Bu
But I cringe at people who simply assume that because someone makes a gun that it is somehow "safe".
Good work is expensive. The workman has a right to make a decent return on his labor. But many people who buy ML want it built by someone making minimum wage. Since this is still too much they buy something from some 3rd world country that likely pays less than a dollar an hour.
Then the fool thinks he has a good gun since it makes sparks and goes bang if he loads it right or he can hit a target with it. He has no knowledge other than that he bought something. It becomes an extension of his personality since he bought it and thus cannot be junk. If he took it apart he would not know what he was looking at though he could probably name the parts. Not only does the owner of this prize not understand the potential dangers of such things he attacks anyone who attempts to inform him.
He construes an attempt to increase his knowledge and make him, his family and others around him safer as a personal attack.
He shoots the messenger...
Dan