Guest
:hmm:How many out there proof their guns?
-
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
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
I always proof the barrel; tie it tight to a fence post, muzzle down. Rifle load about 150Gr of 3F & two balls, pistol 100 gr w/ two balls. (Some of my buddies use more powder.) Build a small pan around touch hole w/ aluminum foil, prime & use cannon fuse. Haven't blown one up yet or blew out a breech plug, & haven't had a barrel take flight yet. Then I finish the barrel.
Tried using the old tire routine once at a range, barrel recoiled back & bent the tang. Fence pole works good for me as I'm in a location no one notices stray rifle noise.
Tried using the old tire routine once at a range, barrel recoiled back & bent the tang. Fence pole works good for me as I'm in a location no one notices stray rifle noise.
Bushwhacker
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2004
- Messages
- 146
- Reaction score
- 0
I always froof load a new rifle. Usually double load. If you have a Dixie gun Works catalog they have some reference material in the back of book that might be helpful in proof firing. :redthumb:
Still doing it after several decades. Guess old habits die hard, but better to damage a bungee corded down fence post than the old bod.
Just as an aside, never, ever, trust any barrel maker when it comes to breeching, trust, but verify applies in spades here. I have found some real horror manure from one of the "so called" top barrel makers.
Just as an aside, never, ever, trust any barrel maker when it comes to breeching, trust, but verify applies in spades here. I have found some real horror manure from one of the "so called" top barrel makers.
Guys, I'm going to ask a question here and it may sound like I'm stiring the pot but I'm not. I just want your thoughts from the other side as it were. Maybe I need to start proofing?
If I double loaded a barrel and it survived the test. Are you not concerned the barrel then has been stressed in some way making it weaker than it was?
I can't imagine in this day and age, if you are using a reputable barrel maker (Not hand built I assume) that they have not tested their product to the "N"th degree already? Setting aside the breeching job which I either do myself or inspect several times.
Again, I'm really wanting to hear your thoughts not trying to start something.
Packdog
If I double loaded a barrel and it survived the test. Are you not concerned the barrel then has been stressed in some way making it weaker than it was?
I can't imagine in this day and age, if you are using a reputable barrel maker (Not hand built I assume) that they have not tested their product to the "N"th degree already? Setting aside the breeching job which I either do myself or inspect several times.
Again, I'm really wanting to hear your thoughts not trying to start something.
Packdog
sherpadoug
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 178
- Reaction score
- 0
First a disclaimer: I have never built a gun.
But as an engineer familiar with modern metallurgy I think you may do significant harm to a barrel by proofing it with a major overload.
What kind of defects are you looking for? If you are looking for defects in the steel it would be much better to X ray or ultrasound it, preferably as a raw bar before going through the work of making a barrel.
If you are looking a cracks that may have developed during machining a dye penetrant or mag particle test would give better results without risk of damage.
Dye and mag are fairly cheap to do. If you start with good quality modern steel and don't encounter any flaws during machining I would say X ray or ultrasound are a waste of money.
Comments welcome.... :m2c:
But as an engineer familiar with modern metallurgy I think you may do significant harm to a barrel by proofing it with a major overload.
What kind of defects are you looking for? If you are looking for defects in the steel it would be much better to X ray or ultrasound it, preferably as a raw bar before going through the work of making a barrel.
If you are looking a cracks that may have developed during machining a dye penetrant or mag particle test would give better results without risk of damage.
Dye and mag are fairly cheap to do. If you start with good quality modern steel and don't encounter any flaws during machining I would say X ray or ultrasound are a waste of money.
Comments welcome.... :m2c:
I am two hours from the nearest town with metallurgical testing tools, so the old reliable fence post, powder & balls is the only practical means I have to check barrel/breech plug.
Firearms have been proved with heavy loads probably since the inception of a hollow tube firing a projectile w/ some kind of powder. E.g, my reprint of the Ordnance Manual of 1861 shows the 1855 having a two shot proof, of 280 grs powder, 1 ball, & 2 wads for the first shot, 250grs, 1 ball, & 2 wads for the second. Somewhere in my library I have an old book showing military proof loads that seem fantastic by today's measures: pistol loads seem to be ".. level the powder at the muzzle & cram a ball down." Wish I could lay my hands on it now, as it is an interesting piece.
Also, modern day firearms are proofed w/ heavy loads, especially with our litiganous society. I have yet to hear of any damaga done to barrels that passed. Ones that don't are obvious. I think history shows proofing barrels is a valid practice.
Of course, proof loads MUST be seated firmly, any air gap would be dangerous.
Firearms have been proved with heavy loads probably since the inception of a hollow tube firing a projectile w/ some kind of powder. E.g, my reprint of the Ordnance Manual of 1861 shows the 1855 having a two shot proof, of 280 grs powder, 1 ball, & 2 wads for the first shot, 250grs, 1 ball, & 2 wads for the second. Somewhere in my library I have an old book showing military proof loads that seem fantastic by today's measures: pistol loads seem to be ".. level the powder at the muzzle & cram a ball down." Wish I could lay my hands on it now, as it is an interesting piece.
Also, modern day firearms are proofed w/ heavy loads, especially with our litiganous society. I have yet to hear of any damaga done to barrels that passed. Ones that don't are obvious. I think history shows proofing barrels is a valid practice.
Of course, proof loads MUST be seated firmly, any air gap would be dangerous.
I proofed a .58 cal. hand forged swamped barrel with 300 grains of 3F Goex and two tightly patched balls, the next load was 300 grains of 3F and a patched ball with a 500 grain mini bullet on top. This was a very severe proof and I don't recommend it to anyone, but if I was going to burst a barrel I wanted to do it before I invested a lot more time in it and built a rifle around it.
Everything held together with no damage, made a fine early Dickert rifle with it.
Regards, Dave
Everything held together with no damage, made a fine early Dickert rifle with it.
Regards, Dave
IMO, with a hand forged barrel, proofing is almost mandatory.
The forged welds must be tested just like in the old days.
As far as I'm concerned, the need to proof modern barrels machined out of bar stock is of questionable value.
The rolling process which reduces large billets of steel into bar stock assures that the finished product will be uniform, and without voids.
:imo:
The forged welds must be tested just like in the old days.
As far as I'm concerned, the need to proof modern barrels machined out of bar stock is of questionable value.
The rolling process which reduces large billets of steel into bar stock assures that the finished product will be uniform, and without voids.
:imo:
Guest
:hmm:Just wanting to mention to all that GM dose not proof any barrels. If they did proofed any there would be proof marks and besides when you get the barrel, the breech is not installed or any other components. The subject question was referring to proofing after installing any components.
As far as I know, no barrel or muzzleloader manufacturer proofs their barrels today. I guess England still requires it of imports, but they perform the proofs themselves.
A proofed barrel means little if the end used saws ofverly deep dovetails or mangles the threads of a breechplug. I see the sense of proofing the final firearm, but the only time I bother is when first shooting a used muzzleloader; and even then it's more a "stout" load than a "proof" load.
A proofed barrel means little if the end used saws ofverly deep dovetails or mangles the threads of a breechplug. I see the sense of proofing the final firearm, but the only time I bother is when first shooting a used muzzleloader; and even then it's more a "stout" load than a "proof" load.
WV_Hillbilly
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 3
YES, I always do... and especially am wary of USED GUNS. You never know what the previous owner(s) might have been shooting through the barrel.
Depending on how heavy a caliber and wall thickness of the barrel and breech, determines what kind of "proof load testing" that I decide to use.
I also consult the back of the Dixie Gun Works catalog to see what Ye Olde English Proof Laws used for their loads.
Generally I only proof test with a 150% charge weight of what the manufacturer recommends as a maximum load for their gun.
Rarely though I will run a double charge proof, again, it depends on the barrel dimensions and type.
Sometimes I have used FFFg instead of FFg. I usually DO NOT load a double ball due to the very real possibility of creating an obstruction in the barrel. That would most likely ring my barrel (at best), or rip the barrel apart like the ones in those old cartoons, or 3 Stooges short films.
I try to find a very heavy close fitting conical and will paper patch it to get an even tighter fit. Using ball, I use the tightest fitting ball and patch combination that I can ram down onto the powder charge.
I have yet to "blow up" a barrel during my proof tests, which to me says a lot about the quality of the steel and the exttra margin of safety built into most muzzleloaders.
Regarding an old original muzzleloader... I only ever owned one which was for a short time and then I traded it off (stupid move on my part) for something that I "wanted" more desperately at the time. I was "very cautious" when I proofed this fine old gun.
FYI...
Once upon a time... A friend and I were going to "make a musket using a modern 12gauge barrel blank. We wanted something diffrent for a "breech plug", so that we could break down the barrel for cleaning straight through.
We made our own breech plug that was just a closely fitted, tight tolerance plug (which had two o-ring grooves and o-rings) that was bolted to an ELL shaped bracket. This then was bolted to the bottom of the barrel--which had a thick flat section at the breech end. The plug and the barrel's breech were NOT threaded together. NOTE: For our proof firing test, we used patched .660 round balls in that .680 bore. We worked our way from 60gr FFg all the way up to 180gr FFg. We removed the breech plug every time and measured the barrel wall thickness and the plug dimensions to check for stretching. We found no changes. Then we loaded a 270gr FFg charge--which we considered extreme, and it was 150% of that 180gr charge. We determined 180gr as the maximum charge for shooting that our shoulders could tolerate, IF we went ahead and decided to make a musket from this barrel. The 270gr charge of FFg still did NOT cause any dimensional changes and we had the opportunity to have it magnafluxed and checked by a couple of engineering friends to see if things had been stressed. There was absolutely no problems with it.
BTW, we chronographed every step of the testing. That 28" barrel with 270gr FFg and a .680" diameter round ball (473gr) produced 2400 feet per second and 6051 ft.lbs of muzzle energy. :what: We watched the bullet strike an area of shale on the side of the hill where we were test firing. It looked like a small cannon round had hit and it got to that point, 175yds away, rather quickly!!! That was ONE FUN TEST!
Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly
Depending on how heavy a caliber and wall thickness of the barrel and breech, determines what kind of "proof load testing" that I decide to use.
I also consult the back of the Dixie Gun Works catalog to see what Ye Olde English Proof Laws used for their loads.
Generally I only proof test with a 150% charge weight of what the manufacturer recommends as a maximum load for their gun.
Rarely though I will run a double charge proof, again, it depends on the barrel dimensions and type.
Sometimes I have used FFFg instead of FFg. I usually DO NOT load a double ball due to the very real possibility of creating an obstruction in the barrel. That would most likely ring my barrel (at best), or rip the barrel apart like the ones in those old cartoons, or 3 Stooges short films.
I try to find a very heavy close fitting conical and will paper patch it to get an even tighter fit. Using ball, I use the tightest fitting ball and patch combination that I can ram down onto the powder charge.
I have yet to "blow up" a barrel during my proof tests, which to me says a lot about the quality of the steel and the exttra margin of safety built into most muzzleloaders.
Regarding an old original muzzleloader... I only ever owned one which was for a short time and then I traded it off (stupid move on my part) for something that I "wanted" more desperately at the time. I was "very cautious" when I proofed this fine old gun.
FYI...
Once upon a time... A friend and I were going to "make a musket using a modern 12gauge barrel blank. We wanted something diffrent for a "breech plug", so that we could break down the barrel for cleaning straight through.
We made our own breech plug that was just a closely fitted, tight tolerance plug (which had two o-ring grooves and o-rings) that was bolted to an ELL shaped bracket. This then was bolted to the bottom of the barrel--which had a thick flat section at the breech end. The plug and the barrel's breech were NOT threaded together. NOTE: For our proof firing test, we used patched .660 round balls in that .680 bore. We worked our way from 60gr FFg all the way up to 180gr FFg. We removed the breech plug every time and measured the barrel wall thickness and the plug dimensions to check for stretching. We found no changes. Then we loaded a 270gr FFg charge--which we considered extreme, and it was 150% of that 180gr charge. We determined 180gr as the maximum charge for shooting that our shoulders could tolerate, IF we went ahead and decided to make a musket from this barrel. The 270gr charge of FFg still did NOT cause any dimensional changes and we had the opportunity to have it magnafluxed and checked by a couple of engineering friends to see if things had been stressed. There was absolutely no problems with it.
BTW, we chronographed every step of the testing. That 28" barrel with 270gr FFg and a .680" diameter round ball (473gr) produced 2400 feet per second and 6051 ft.lbs of muzzle energy. :what: We watched the bullet strike an area of shale on the side of the hill where we were test firing. It looked like a small cannon round had hit and it got to that point, 175yds away, rather quickly!!! That was ONE FUN TEST!
Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly
