Proving Barrels

[Dphar]

This grows out of the discussion of Indian made ML muskets.

It has never been possible to "proof" a barrel made of inferior or improper materials and "prove" its safe. It may stand proof then fail with some subsequent shot with a service load.
This was true in the 18th Century and its still true today.
The act of over pressuring an improperly made/improper alloy barrel when "proving" can hasten a later failure.

In The Gun by W. Greener (not W.W.) in 1835 he points put the barrels sometime fail with a service charge after being proved. He thought it was a sign that the mode of prove was lacking.
However, considering the state of metallurgy at the time it is surprising to me that more did not fail. They failed due to an unsuitable alloy or other flaw in their making.
A GOOD iron barrel will easily contain BP pressures, especially with flint ignition. The Muskets used in our Civil War were ALL iron and very few if any failed after proof.
Steel is stronger.
HOWEVER, the alloy is critical. Choose the wrong alloy and a barrel that passes proof can still fail due to the alloy or the manufacturing process being incorrect for the usage.
Proving only finds gross flaws. It cannot protect against shoddy workmanship, improper alloys or improper processes in steel making or in making the final product.
Back circa 1969-71 a friend showed me a 13/16" 45 cal Douglas that burst with a service load on the first shot. It split up the top flat for about a foot from the breech forward.
I going through some old magazines I found in the basement a couple of days ago I found a piece in a 1972 Muzzle Blasts with a 13/16 x 45 douglas that failed in the same manner. 70 gr of FFG in this case and Roy Keeler who wrote the article assured the reader it was properly loaded. Roy stated that he had gotten lax after proving 100s of barrels over the years and decided it was not necessary and he soon had this failure due to flaws in the steel.
Some steels and some PROCESSES for making tubing WILL NOT tolerate internal pressure well or shock loading (fast pressure rise). Gun barrels are subject to both. This means that alloys and manufacturing methods must be proper for the job.
Some individuals will try to make a case for "seamless" or welded tubing. They like to use the argument that all the old barrels were welded tubes. They fail to take into consideration that.
1. Lots of barrels failed killing and maiming people "back in the day".
2. That iron welds far easier than steel does.
3. Through trial and error over CENTURIES barrel forgers found what worked best. But they were hampered by metallurgy and in many cases greed so some barrels, either knowingly or otherwise were seriously flawed when they left the forge.

There has ALWAYS been a problem with cheap poorly made barrels. Firearms build for the North American and Africa native trade generally had VERY poor barrels. Many had forged proof marks (according the W. Greener) and were never proved. Some barrels recovered from NA sites and subjected to microscopic analyses sjow the barrels coming to NA natives were riddled with inclusions and "greys" that would have almost surely caused immediate failure with modern powders.
Powder:
Powder from the 18th century, especially the stuff exported, was much weaker than that in use today. Thus an 18th century trade gun/musket/rifle barrel that was "safe" in the day might bulge or burst if proved or simply fired with modern powder with its faster burn rates.

MY OPINION...
There are LOTS of ML barrels being made of materials that a metallurgist would say were unsuitable. Makers here and apparently abroad as well are doing this.
There are photos of a burst Indian made musket. It was burst with a BLANK charge reportedly with NO WADDING.
It is a VERY similar split to the Douglas barrels above. There is one exception. Parts of the split are cleaner, as if the welding or drawing process did not "stick" the tube together.
Though I have not personally seen the barrel from the photos I think:

1. The barrel was seriously flawed and was never proved.
2. The Indian made musket had a barrel made in a manner unacceptable to modern barrel making standards.

It was meant to be a wall hanger or a movie prop in all likelyhood and the maker almost certainly did not drill a vent so it could be fired. This was almost surely done at some time AFTER the gun was finished and according to at least one firm selling these things drilling a vent voids the warranty.
In my opinion people who shoot these things or witness them being fired is foolish.


From a Web Site selling such things:
*****************
"Our Guarantee

If upon receiving your musket you are not completely happy with your purchase, you may return it for a refund. All we ask is you cover the shipping costs.

Non-Firing State

We sell historically accurate muskets as a non-firing state. This allows us to comply with local, state, national and international firearms regulations. A certified gunsmith may alter this musket to a firing state by drilling the vent hole and test firing it. We are not legally responsible for any alteration from its present non-firing state."
*********************
One should carefully read the last sentence.

Dan

 

[paulvallandigham]

Dan: You need to read the HP White Lab report on that gun, which is discussed under the SMOOTHBORE topic on this forum. See:
http://www.middlesexvillagetrading.com/special/HPWhiteReportWithPersonalInfoBlocked.pdf

 

[renovato]

I read the report on that gun that blew. The metallurgist found that while the barrel hadn't been proved, it had been constructed properly, of proper metal. They found no flaws or inclusions, and in testing the hardness in 3 dimensions, found that the steel tensile strength should rate 85,000 PSI. They also found that the failure point was indicative of an obstruction. Well, an obstructed barrel is going to blow, regardless who made it, even with a blank charge. This was a shooter caused problem, not a manufacturing one.

In the end, the metallurgist's research, and the fact that these guns aren't blowing up all over the place, kinda proves that they're properly made and safe for firing.

 

[Pigman]

If the musket in question, or any made by a top line custom builder, had inclusions in the steel that could cause it to fail. How can you as a consumer detect it? No US builder officially proofs there guns and proofing can not detect these faults. Your post even points out that a gun may proof fine and work fine for years and then fail. How can a buyer determine a gun is safe?

Tough question isn’t it?

Do you want the government to inspect and certify every weapon?

What are our options?

Thanks,
Mark C. Foster

 

[Zonie]

If someone is very worried about the quality of their gunbarrel, they can take it out of the stock and take it to a machine shop that specializes in rebuilding automotive engines.

Many of these shops have a machine that will do a Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI).

Tell them you want them to look for cracks and "Non Magnetic Inclusions". If they don't know what that is, take it to another shop.

This machine induces a magnetic field into the steel and the solution or loose particles they apply to the outside of the barrel will show any cracks or non metallic inclusions.

After they finish, they will de-magnetize the barrel.

This process is often called Magnaflux. Not all shops have the equipment so call them before you drive over to their shop.

Also, if they say they can do a Penetrant, or Fluorescent Penetrant inspection and it is just as good, tell them thanks, but no thanks.

Penetrant or Fluorescent Penetrant inspection is a surface inspection that will not detect defects which are buried under the surface.

Both of these inspection processes are used for all magnetic materials which are used in jet engines so, we are not talking about some funky inspection that is good for car engines but not highly stressed parts like gun barrels.

Some very high quality steels will show non-metallic inclusions due to their makeup but the plain carbon or leaded carbon steels used for gunbarrels should not show any large indications.

By the way, MPI is better at detecting these potential problems than high energy X rays, Ultrasonic or Eddy Current inspection.

It isn't a real complicated process so it shouldn't cost very much to have it done.

 

[Tman]

That poor old horse, all he wants is for us to stop beating him. :yakyak:

 

[Zonie]

I had another thought after I posted about Magnafluxing.
If your barrel is made with a "leaded steel" it may show some "non-metallic" inclusions but they should show up as an even "frosted" look without any large groupings. These indications would be due to the lead that is in the steel.

By the way, leaded steel is just as strong in every way as the other unleaded low carbon steels. The lead is in there to facilitate machining.

 

[Dphar]

By the way, leaded steel is just as strong in every way as the other unleaded low carbon steels. The lead is in there to facilitate machining.

This is fundamentally incorrect when dealing with tubes subjected to internal pressure and shock loading. The inclusions are flaws in the metal that weaken it for this use and can lead to fractures. Fast pressure rise loading is one of the things people often overlook when simply considering a steels paper numbers. The faster the pressure is applied the weaker the steel, any alloy, becomes. Some alloys are more tolerant of this than others. But this is not something the normal tensile strength tests will show. So a steel with xxxxx yield might be weaker than another steel of the same yield when exposed to internal pressure with a fast pressure rise.

Dan

 

[Zonie]

Dan: May I say that I'm well aware of the affects of fast pressure rises on pressure vessels, but am I to believe that you have data that supports the idea that leaded steel is more prone to failure when used as a pressure vessel than plain carbon steels like AISI 1018 or AISI 1020?

I haven't seen any data to support this contention so any data you may have would be appreciated.

Generally speaking, my data indicates that AISI 12L14 (leaded steel) has a higher tensile and yield strength than either AISI 1018 or 1020 (both of which have been used for Muzzleloading Black Powder barrels for years).

 

[Dphar]

Dan: May I say that I'm well aware of the affects of fast pressure rises on pressure vessels, but am I to believe that you have data that supports the idea that leaded steel is more prone to failure when used as a pressure vessel than plain carbon steels like AISI 1018 or AISI 1020?

I haven't seen any data to support this contention so any data you may have would be appreciated.

Generally speaking, my data indicates that AISI 12L14 (leaded steel) has a higher tensile and yield strength than either AISI 1018 or 1020 (both of which have been used for Muzzleloading Black Powder barrels for years).

If you are interested I suggest you do some research into barrel steels and the effects of sulfur, phosphorous and lead added to the steel. High levels tend to cause flaws in the steel that are relatively unimportant for making screws. Tensile and yield are not produced by internal pressure tests but by simply pulling a bar of steel till it is pulled in two. Elongation and reduction in cross section must be considered as well. 12L14 show more brittle, even though its no harder. Problem is there is very little info out there on 12L14 in this application since I don't think the steel makers recommend it as a barrel steel.
I will see if I can dig through a pile of magazines and see if those in question are still there. But since I have not bothered looking for "proof" for 30 odd years when I was convinced of this because of blown up MLs and the research done by others at that time, I may not find it at this date.
Finding information on gun barrel steels on the WWW is just about impossible in my experience. I have looked several times over the last few years with virtually nothing to show for it.
Metallurgists who understand gun barrels are good, if they will comment. I had problems getting a answer direct from a Professor of metallurgy at a large eastern university. The question concerned using 1144 for barrels and when I got the answer it was from a third party and the profs name was not on it. It said "Why would anyone use anything but chro-moly". This bore out my contention. 1144 has been used by some for high power barrels at times in the past but its not a good choice.
Metallurgists don't like talking gun barrels since it generally indicates lawsuits and they dislike being called as witnesses I am told.

Dan

 

Problem is there is very little info out there on 12L14 in this application

You mean other than the 30,000 barrels that Getz has made plus Rice barrels and a few others???. The 'proof' is in the pudding. Like Don Getz says, any barrel can be made to fail, short starting a prime cause, the difference is that the harder steels fragment like a grenade and the softer steel 12L14 will open up like a banana. Which one would you rather be holding or standing beside.

 

[paulvallandigham]

"Metallurgists don't like talking gun barrels since it generally indicates lawsuits and they dislike being called as witnesses I am told."

If a scientist won't give an opinion based on all his training, and knowledge about a given kind of metal, because he " doesn't want to be called as a witness", then he is not much of an " Expert". Experts - true experts have no problem whatsoever stating their opinions, and explaining the basis for them. They stand up to any cross-examination very well. In fact, they rarely are cross-examined at all!----- its not like on TV or in the movies.

Only when some " Expert" is trying to testify about something that is contrary to what other experts in his field say is he going to be challenged.

Its a responsibility of an attorney calling any witness to prepare that witness for testifying in Court, including instructing the witness how to handle cross examination. With Expert Opinion witnesses, the attorney should be questioning the witness before trial about published data, and other sources to back up his stated opinion. I have had experts bring to court treatises on the subject. I know other lawyers who have prepared video tapes of testing to demonstrate whether something does, or does NOT occur, when such a test cannot be done in the Courtroom.

I have helped other lawyers prepare tests of firearms to demonstrate clearly to the lawyer, that what his client says happened IS what happened, and not the version given to the police by the (lying) complaining witness.

 

[Dphar]

Dan: May I say that I'm well aware of the affects of fast pressure rises on pressure vessels, but am I to believe that you have data that supports the idea that leaded steel is more prone to failure when used as a pressure vessel than plain carbon steels like AISI 1018 or AISI 1020?

I haven't seen any data to support this contention so any data you may have would be appreciated.

Generally speaking, my data indicates that AISI 12L14 (leaded steel) has a higher tensile and yield strength than either AISI 1018 or 1020 (both of which have been used for Muzzleloading Black Powder barrels for years).

Here is one article from the September 1981 "The Buckskin Report" by a metallurgist.
However, there are pages and pages especially from Mr Cunningham (barrel maker defending 12L14). But I have already spent several hours on something that will likely be misunderstood or ignored (historical precedent for this attitude) and am not going to scan and OCR another 10 pages. I suggest people interested do their own research. Kelly's references would be a place to start.

To understand it all you need relevant copies of The Buckskin Report from mid 1981 to mid 1982. I am not sure at this time I even have all of them. Though I have not gotten through everything I have yet. I need to find the one with Mr Kelly's qualifications.
Note that brittle in steel is not like brittle in an ice tea glass. It means that is has poor ductility and may fail in a way that produces fragments. It also weakens the steel to shock loading. but I think Kelly touches on this.

================
Gun Barrel Steels - The Tough and The Brittle


By James Kelly
July 22, 1981

Some modern, American made, muzzle loading rifle barrels have |inexplicably blown up, crippling the shooter.

Barrel design, gross overloading, accidental air space between powder and ball, and the choice of barrel steel are all factors which contribute to these failures. Let's examine them one at a time.

Barrel design faults arise when a mass-produced straight octagonal barrel is made as slim as possible to reduce weight. With a thin barrel wall near the breech, and milled sight or underlug dovetails, very linle metal remains to 23 withstand the explosion. Old barrels were heavy in the breech. Reasonable weight and good balance were achieved by tapering the barrel, making it lighter where the stresses are usually lower.

Gross overloading comes about because many people load as if they were planning to shoot right through five buffalo. Or, they want the damn muzzle loader to shoot like a 30- '06. They just gotta have their flat trajectory, having grown up (?) on smokeless powder and copper jacketed bullets.

Accidental air space between powder and ball can happen to anyone. If you haven't loaded a muzzle loader wrong, you're either: (1) perfect, (2) a liar, or (3) you never shot one. With reasonable powder charges and good steel the results may range from nothing through a ringed bore to a bulged barrel. Heavy loads, plus and air space may burst a good barrel, releasing hot gases, or peel it ~-~ back like a banana.

If the steel is improper, an air space can cause it to shatter like a grenade even with light powder charges. The result can be, and has been, permanently crippling to the shooter.

Gun barrels, either breech or muzzle loading, must be of tough steel to minimize injury to the shooter when something does go wrong. Remember -- a well-designed barrel of even very brittle steel may withstand extreme overcharging without failure, but let a sizeable space between powder and ball, ~~-~ and that barrel can split and shatter, destroying any wood, flesh or bone in the vicinity.

It ought to be simple to find good steel for muzzle loaders. Almost any annealed steel with no more than 0.4% carbon should work fairly well.

I can state three reasons why it is not simple: machinability, the desire for an octagonal shape and a primitive belief in tensile strength as an important property; all stand in the way.

The cheapest way to raise the tensile strength of steel is to cold draw it. . Good ol' cold drawn steel not only has the higher tensile strength, but it machines better. Cold drawn rounds are rounder than hot rolled rounds, so they ft better in modern machine collets. Want a straight octagon shape? The most efficient way to get it is to cold draw it.

The easiest way to lower the toughness of steel is to cold draw it. Whazzat? You jest said cold drawn steel had a higher tensile strength, ain't that good?

No sir, Mr. Hawkin, tensile strength is nice, but your barrels MUST be made of tough steel to be safe.

The cold drawing process, even if followed by stress relief u high u 18gB degrees F., leaves the metal susceptible to brittle failure under impact loading.

Cold drawn steel is not suitable for shock loading applications - cold drawn steel is dangerous in gun barrels.

Nevertheless, many barrel makers use cold drawn steel because it machines exceptionally well. Machinability is important, of course, but it shouldn't be the most important consideration in selecting a barrel steel.

It is true that thousands of barrels, some very accurate, have been made of such materials as cold drawn 12L14 and cold drawn 1144. Most have performed well, without failure. However, some have removed important chunks of their shooter's hand. Materials with low toughness behave erratically; one piece may work fine and the next fail without warning.

I have stated that toughness is important, so now to define it. Qualitatively, "toughness~ is that property of metal which enables it to survive heavy, sledge-hammer blows without breaking in pieces. Tough steel may dent or bend, but it doesn't snap.

A very rough indication of toughness in steel is the ductility that it shows in a tensile test. This is measured by the percent elongation of the tensile bar, how much it stretched before it broke. Another measure is percent reduction of area, how much that bar necked down, thinned out, when it was pulled to breaking. Low elongation or reduction of area means the steel is not ductile, is more likely to snap or shatter than it is to bend or stretch. High ductility means it might be able to stretch a great deal before final fracture.

Might? There is a catch to using tensile ductility as a measure of toughness. That is, it is the nature of steel, even ductile steel, to act brittle when struck a heavy blow (gunpowder in the presence of notches (sight and pin lug dovetails, breech threads or when cold (winter hunting. ALL steel becomes brittle if it is cold enough. Ask someone who has spent time in Alaska.

A better measure of toughness, which takes into amount shock loading, notches, and temperature, is the notched bar impact test. The two most popular are Charpy and Izod. Results are expressed in foot pounds of energy absorbed in breaking the bar. Below 10 or I5 ft-lb Charpy, steel is not considered tough enough for structural applications. 40 ft-lb is good and 100 ft-lb very good.

I said that steel behaves in a brittle fashion if it is cold enough. The temperature at which this occurs is called the ductile-to-brittle impact transition temperature. Below this temperature the steel will snap if struck a sharp blow. Above this temperature the same steel is tough. Right close to this transition temperature the steel may behave either way, in an erratic manner.

By the way, even when cold and brittle, a steel can show high ductility in a tensile test, because the metal is being stretched s-l-o-w l y. Kind of like silly putty, pull it fast and it snaps, slowly and it stretches all over the place.

If you follow all this, you've absorbed an important lesson in metallurgy. Now for some specific examples. Common hot rolled I018 steel remains tough to below freezing. Cold drawn l018 may think its cold and be brittle on a July day. Well heat treated 4140 chrome-moly steel at Rockwell C27 can be tough and strong all the way down to 50 degrees below zero. Cold drawn 12L14 is brittle on a warm day even when tested with the grain running the long way of the specimen. Tested across the grain (the way a barrel is actually stressed) this 12L14 is brittle at any temperature on earth. Or, as one steel company publication puts it, "Although no tests were conducted in the transverse or radial direction ... test results of other resulfurized steels of this type indicate very poor properties, probably less than 5 ft-lb. over the whole temperature range shown.

Very poor properties. That describes the 12L14 whether you call it Lewdly, Mach S or La-Led - used by so many barrel makers. Very poor properties. That is what a lot of you wrap around 100 grains of whatever. Then you wrap your left hand around the forestock and touch off an ear ringing explosion that echoes about the hills.

Muzzle loading barrels should be made of properly heat treated steel, never of cold drawn steel. Annealed, normalized, quenched and tempered -all are proper heat treatments for some grade of steel or other. The condition of the steel (heat treated, cold drawn, etc.) can be more important than the grade (1018,1137, etc).

Oil quenched and tempered {about 1200 -1250 degrees F.) Rifle Barrel Quality 4140 is an excellent barrel steel but probably far better than needed for a muzzle loader.

Typcial steels with reasonable toughness and machinability are Gun Barrel Quality 1119, l018, 1117, 11L17, 1137 or 1035 (these steels may be cataloged as "hot rolled” which is O.K.). These steels are not acceptable if cold drawn.

Barrel makers should specifically request Gun Barrel Quality carbon or re-sulphurized steels, or Gun Barrel Quality alloy steel, such as 4130 or 4140 steel designation relates to freedom from large inclusions which might cause failure.
{ Note: I think there is a type setting error between “4140 steel” and “designation”, I believe it should read The Gun Barrel Quality designation... DP}

Commonly available cold drawn steels, which should NOT be used for gun barrels, are 1018 bar and seamless tubing, 12L14 and 1144. STRESSPROOF, a high quality cold drawn 1144, is not suited for shock applications such as gun barrels.

The following data is important to barrel makers -- and much more important to the shooter!

Those numbers mean that both properly heat treated 4110 or normalized 1016 (similar to as-hot rolled, or 1018 hot rolled) will be tough on a very cold day. Cold drawn bars may fail in a brittle, unpredictable manner under shock a loading on a warm day.

Grain size and heat treated condition (annealed, normalized, or quenched and tempered) will effect all these results. This information is presented to pet people thinking and is not a definitive study on the toughness of commercial steel.

Data on wrought iron is to emphasize the point that modern steels aren't necessarily better than what was available a century or two ago. Wrought iron, too, can be unreliable, depending upon how it is made. I do not suggest it as the ideal barrel material.
I do suggest that any barrel maker who now used cold drawn, or cold drawn stress relieved steel, discuss this information with a couple of good technical service metallurgists from the steel mill with rolls the original bar stock.

REFERENCES:
1. Metals Handbook 1948 edition, American Society for Metals, pg 505.
2. L.J. Ebert, A Handbook on the Properties of Cold Worked Steels, Watertown Arsenal Laboratory Report No. 310/90-85, pg. 44.
3. Modern Steels and their Properties, 6th Edition, Bethlehem Steel Co.
4. Unpublished data, La Salle Steel Co.

 

[Dphar]

"Metallurgists don't like talking gun barrels since it generally indicates lawsuits and they dislike being called as witnesses I am told."

If a scientist won't give an opinion based on all his training, and knowledge about a given kind of metal, because he " doesn't want to be called as a witness", then he is not much of an " Expert". Experts - true experts have no problem whatsoever stating their opinions, and explaining the basis for them. They stand up to any cross-examination very well. In fact, they rarely are cross-examined at all!----- its not like on TV or in the movies.

Only when some " Expert" is trying to testify about something that is contrary to what other experts in his field say is he going to be challenged.

Its a responsibility of an attorney calling any witness to prepare that witness for testifying in Court, including instructing the witness how to handle cross examination. With Expert Opinion witnesses, the attorney should be questioning the witness before trial about published data, and other sources to back up his stated opinion. I have had experts bring to court treatises on the subject. I know other lawyers who have prepared video tapes of testing to demonstrate whether something does, or does NOT occur, when such a test cannot be done in the Courtroom.

I have helped other lawyers prepare tests of firearms to demonstrate clearly to the lawyer, that what his client says happened IS what happened, and not the version given to the police by the (lying) complaining witness.

So when was the last time YOU tried to contact a Metallugist about a barrel steel? Have you worked professionally as a gunsmith? Have you been a technical advisor for a gun maker? The explanation given about the Metallurgy Prof. was one I got from a trusted friend who got the information for me. If it does not suit you tough toenails.
I cannot control what some chemist does or what the result is or what some lawyer did or didn't do. I have people in the industry or in the sport I trust, I have known them for decades and they are reliable. Furthermore they have no axe to grind. Neither do I. I simply try to pass on things I feel might be of interest or might help someone with a problem or a safety issue.
I assume you are a lawyer or a judge.
Has it ever occurred to you that people might feel that they have better things to do than subject themselves to questioning by some dumbs**t with a law degree and a paper saying he can practice law??
If your experiences differs so be it. I have no control over your experiences but given some of the stuff you post I am not particularly impressed with your expertise in firearms.
There are a LOT of *very* well informed people who avoid sites like this one like the plague for the very reason that it is simply not possible to try to inform people that already know everything. I was warned about the idiot factor but chose to ignore the warning. I just spent about 5 hours trying to answer a question that I am SURE all the "experts" with their cheap, sloppily made MLs, who don't know siccum about the subject and never even heard about it until yesterday or last week will say is BS.

Have a nice day.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

Problem is there is very little info out there on 12L14 in this application

You mean other than the 30,000 barrels that Getz has made plus Rice barrels and a few others???. The 'proof' is in the pudding. Like Don Getz says, any barrel can be made to fail, short starting a prime cause, the difference is that the harder steels fragment like a grenade and the softer steel 12L14 will open up like a banana. Which one would you rather be holding or standing beside.

This the classic argument of the uniformed.
People use 12L14 because its cheap and cuts smooth.
Not because its the best material for the application.
Dan

 

[paulvallandigham]

Dan, I have been called as an expert witness on several occasions, and have rendered expert opinions in three different areas of expertise, over the years. I am not a qualified gun maker, or gunsmith. I do know ballistics. Within the range of my knowledge I assist lawyers in preparing their cases, and I am prepared to testify in court to back up my findings. I am not a trained metallurgist. I have more than a passing interest in the field, however. I am not a trained Anthropologist, nor have I ever taken an Anthropology course, but I have been a guest instructor for such a course, using knowledge gained through personal training, and experience, to teach Anthropology students. And, I co-authored an original research paper that is published in the July, 1991 issue of the Journal of Forensic Sciences.

ABout expertise. My Professor co-author responded to my reluctance to be listed as a co-author of our article, because I do Not have the academic credentials he has by telling me that once you have a degree or two under your belt, you can do quality ( or junk) research in any area of interest. The work stands by itself. Our work was published in a Peer-Reviewed Journal. That means the article is first sent out to members of the Academy of Forensic Sciences for them to review and comment on. They can say anything they want, of course, but their main concern is to see that the paper is written in a scholarly manner, uses accepted scientific methods of analysis, observation, and knowledge to extend the breadth of knowledge in the field of study. In this case, the field was Physical Anthropology.
I hold a B.A. degree in History, and Juris Doctorate in law. Frankly, he candidly told me that once you have earned a " Dr." in front of your name, there is no need to continue to pursue academic degrees. Its what you research, and publish that makes your reputation in the academic world, from that point on.

I have qualified many witnesses as" Experts" who meet the general definition of an " Expert " because they have acquired special knowledge through Training, Education, and/or experience. Not all training, education and experience occurs in classrooms, lecture halls, or laboratories. In fact, much of the best special knowledge can only be obtained away from such hallowed halls of higher education. :hmm: :thumbsup:

 

[Zonie]

Dan: Thank you for the information and the time you spent researching it.
Your comment, "...there are pages and pages especially from Mr Cunningham (barrel maker defending 12L14)." would seem to indicate that there may be another side of the story which would be interesting as well but I cannot ask you to spend more time on this issue.

I don't have any information on the impact testing other than what was given in the article you quoted. I did note that it mentioned that 1117 has reasonable toughness and my information indicates that HR 1117 has a Elongation of 23%.
Interestingly, it indicates that a Hot rolled 12L14 has a Elongation of 22%. I am assuming that a Hot rolled version of this material is available as my Materials Engineering book gives this data.

Anyway, it has been informative and interesting.

I do resent being painted with a wide brush by your comment,
"...There are a LOT of *very* well informed people who avoid sites like this one like the plague for the very reason that it is simply not possible to try to inform people that already know everything. I was warned about the idiot factor but chose to ignore the warning..."

By saying you "ignored the warning" I take it you are saying we members on this forum are "idiots"?
Hardly a way to make friends and influence people.

 

[tg]

". I was warned about the idiot factor but chose to ignore the warning..."

My now, but if that dosen't sound like the pot callin' the kettle black...

 

Problem is there is very little info out there on 12L14 in this application

You mean other than the 30,000 barrels that Getz has made plus Rice barrels and a few others???. The 'proof' is in the pudding. Like Don Getz says, any barrel can be made to fail, short starting a prime cause, the difference is that the harder steels fragment like a grenade and the softer steel 12L14 will open up like a banana. Which one would you rather be holding or standing beside.

This the classic argument of the uniformed.
People use 12L14 because its cheap and cuts smooth.
Not because its the best material for the application.
Dan

Uninformed?, perhaps. Or perhaps your MISSinformed. Something I've learned over the years is that when one is faced with conflicting opinions, one based on 20-30 years of practical experience and the other based on 4-5 years of university 'education', the practical experience trumps the 'book learning' every time. By what you posted, all of the information presented from the metalurgist, is theory regurgitated from a book (or two). This does not make the info wrong, however, it also doesn't automatically make it right. Actually, more correctly, it doesn't make it 'relevent'. In the early days, Don and Dick (Getz)did a multitude of tests on 12L14 to see how it reacts specifically as a ML barrel steel. Even loaded with extreme heavy loads, they could not get a barrel to fail and these tests were done with barrel walls thinner than what is used in the thinnest production barrel. A heavy load, short started, would sometimes result in a rupture. A load of powder, patch, ball, followed by a patch/ball shortstarted, would always result in a rupture but also resulted in a rupture of barrels tested with harder "gun barrel steel". They even went as far as taking a short piece of barrel (I believe 6 or 8 inches, breeching both ends filled with powder and igniting through a touch hole. Don's comment was "I couldn't believe all that pressure came out the touch hole". The barrel didn't fail and subsiquent measurements revealed that the barrel dimentions did not expand. Interestingly, your learned friend states that 12L14 is "brittle at any temperature on earth" and therefore should shatter. In the actual tests conducted by Don and Dick, in fact it does not. When an extreme test caused the 12L14 to rupture, it would always peel open like a banana. The harder "gun barrel steels" however, shattered. When sceptics are faced with the "classic argument of the uniformed" 30,000 Getz barrels, the typical response is 'Oh they are gonna fail, sooner or later they will'. Well I know people with over 50,000 rounds through a getz 12L14 barrel and we're still waiting. You state that "People use 12L14 because its cheap and cuts smooth.
Not because its the best material for the application." This always reminds me of Weatherby's claim to have "the strongest bolt action in the world". Yeah, with thier 9 locking lugs they are stronger than the typical 2 lug Mauser style bolt but what is the relevence if the 2 lug mauser types never fail?. Are there stronger steels out there to make barrels from?, without a doubt. Are stronger steels necessary to produce a safe ML barrel?, based on real world experience, apparently not.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

This the classic argument of the uniformed.
People use 12L14 because its cheap and cuts smooth.
Not because its the best material for the application.
Dan

Sadly Dan, you are wrong. I'm with Cody, I'll trust Goetz (and Colerain) with their 12L14 barrels any day so I guess I am one of the "uniformed"... :hmm: