• 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

"Thin barrel" question re: round ball

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I've shot round balls in my Robert Chaplain, Birmingham, UK, SxS 13 gauge shotgun for decades. It was mfg. in the 1850's, and has "London Fine Twist" barrels. Minute of deer out to 40 yards. Actually the individual barrels are more accurate than that, but the point of impact begins to diverge more than I like at that distance, so I limit shots to 40 yards. Works fine.
GOOD Damascus is as good as fluid steels and in fact its possible to order modern shotguns from the big makers with Damascus steel barrels. See the testing done detailed in W.W. Greeners “The Gun and Its development”. At least in my 1896 edition.
 
The vast majority of trade guns made today use barrels about twice as thick (and heavy) as originals.

This makes for guns that aren’t nearly as lithe as the examples they’re made to represent. Our trade guns typically weigh in the 7-8 lbs range but most period pieces weighed in the 5-6 lbs range.
 
Hi,
I shoot a smooth bore English fowler a lot and mostly patched round ball. Typical of modern made fowler barrels, it is not as light or thin walled as all of the original fowlers I own. I shoot PRB very accurately from it and it is one of my favorite woods walk guns. However, my shop recently finished a fowler using Rice's new "Dolop" barrel made from 4140 steel. The 41" barrel weighs barely 2 pounds and is very thin walled. The entire gun weighs 5.5 lbs. It certainly makes a light and lively gun excellent for shooting at flying birds but not so good for patched round ball. When shooting off hand, it is harder to steady on a stationary target and recoil is very noticeable with the loads required for accurate shooting at 50-75 yards. Can you shoot round ball from it? Of course you can but I prefer a heavier barrel for that purpose.

dave
 
Round balls are often loaded with a heavier powder charge since a 1300 +- fps rb load may not give the best accuracy and does not shoot flat. The other problem is the steel often used in ML barrels in the US, which has no official proof house or proof law. Cold rolled free machining steels like 12L14 cut like butter. But they are brittle and may (and have) fail at pressure levels lower than the paper tensile numbers FAR LOWER. Because, being brittle they are not very tolerant of shock loading. Actually for ML arms a barrel made of ”best iron” like the Springfield and other Rifle Muskets, is superior to some modern steels for safety. Thin barrels tend to flex a little and with this cold rolled steel is not good. Remington made number of shotgun barrels of 1144M (meaning “modified” which work hardens when flexed and they got seriously sued by some trap shooters (they run up high round counts) who had barrel failures and injuries when the barrels got brittle enough to fail. There was no recall but they had to send everyone who owned a shotgun in the serial number a check. Not much but I got one. I never shoot the thing but I guess I should rebarrel it.

USA made barrels are sold overseas in Australia, England, Ireland, Europe…. 12L14 barrels are proofed in countries with very strict proofing requirements, I’ve never seen any issues with them that were not from human error.
 
Round balls are often loaded with a heavier powder charge
I'm assuming you mean heavier than shot charges... Do you have some way to support this, I'd be interested in it.
This has not been my experience. Most of my roundball charges in my two smoothbores are about equal to my shot charges, 65 to 80 grains depending on what I'm doing, and for a while one of my shot loads was heavier than my roundball loads.
The only time I see reports of significantly heavier powder charges for roundball from a smoothbore is load data from shooters using a completely bare ball, not just no patch, but no wadding between powder and ball to create a gas seal of any kind..... That lack of wadding or patch would seem to negate any potential for a significant increase in pressure.
 
The verbiage about not shooting roundball in thin fowler barrels, or about thin barrels not being for roundballs would seem to be more of a performance issue as @dave_person alludes to. A thinner barreled gun handles better, but too thin a barrel and on target hold suffers, and, I think, grouping suffers as the thinner barrel heats up.
 
The vast majority of trade guns made today use barrels about twice as thick (and heavy) as originals.

This makes for guns that aren’t nearly as lithe as the examples they’re made to represent. Our trade guns typically weigh in the 7-8 lbs range but most period pieces weighed in the 5-6 lbs range.

There also wasn’t as much concern over safety in the 18th century as there is today.

Consumers today want to know they have a high quality durable product that will outlive their expected useful life.

Most people will often associate thicker and heavier with better quality.
 
USA made barrels are sold overseas in Australia, England, Ireland, Europe…. 12L14 barrels are proofed in countries with very strict proofing requirements, I’ve never seen any issues with them that were not from human error.
IF you look to what the steel makers say and what a metallurgist knowledgeable in such things and FAILURE analysis You might come to a different conclusion. You can proof a cold rolled steel barrel any way you like and it may, shoot for ever, or fail with the first service load or down 20 or 1000 rounds later. But of course if you make barrels from this stuff or if you are uniformed as the the HISTORY then you might have a different opinion. AND flintlocks are less prone to failure than percussions are. But since you are apparently either new to the sport, too young to remember or did not subscribe to the old Buckskin Report you will not know such things. For example, I used to by part from Roy Kellor back in the day. He stopped proving barrels since they never failed. Until one of the rifles he built had a barrel failure. He wrote this up in Muzzleblasts. Then, it was a Douglas barre, Douglas would not longer sell him barrels. About this time I say a 45-13/16 Douglas the split up the top flat ( fortunately) from breech face to rear sight. 60 gr of powder and a RB. I have seen and early TC “Hawken” barrel (they were 12L14) the split in the underlug dovetail. Another ML sight, until they “upgraded” had a post with a photo of a man at a re-enactment with no left had. His fowler barrel failed at the WEDDING BANDS. The poster said he thought he know the barrel maker due to the depth of the wedding bands (these are STRESS RISERS BTW). Then the brittle fracture failures of some other TC barrels. AT THE BREECH. But everyone blames the shooter for no loading right. Douglas in an attempt to solve the barrel failure ”problem” without abandoning the cold drawn octagional 12L14 bars, added a heat treating to anneal the the bars. This products a hard oxide scale that would dull a file instantly. It had to to taken off with abrasives then draw filed. But of course if you were not building guns in the early 70s (before Douglas abandoned ML barrels, you would not know this. The editor of the Buckskin Report received a letter from Lasalle Steel. They developed “Fatigue Proof” and Stress Proof) cold rolled (drawn) steel alloys. One was 12L14 and the other 11L44. The are designed and intentionally made brittle (it causes the chips the break), they have added lead, sulfur and phosphorus that help lubricate the cut. BUT these things cause INCLUSIONS and when heated to read they can MIGRATE and cause bigger ”problems”. Higher grades of steel. Krieger, of Krieger barrel fame told a friend that if he watched them make mill run steel on would never use such a thing for anything. Steel is actually graded by its level of inclusions. Gun Barrel quality is lower than “Aircraft“ and “Nuclear” (this is used in refinery pipes etc according the a friend who was a welder in a refinery). And reactors and such. The bars that used to come to a gunmaker I worked for were all stamped GB. But to make such steels require a CLEAN FURNACE. Plus its INSPECTED and must be ordered in furnace melt quantities. Few ML barrel makers order steel in 50000+ pound lots. I gotta go eat lunch. If you want I will post a copy of the Lasalle letter.
 
IF you look to what the steel makers say and what a metallurgist knowledgeable in such things and FAILURE analysis You might come to a different conclusion. You can proof a cold rolled steel barrel any way you like and it may, shoot for ever, or fail with the first service load or down 20 or 1000 rounds later. But of course if you make barrels from this stuff or if you are uniformed as the the HISTORY then you might have a different opinion. AND flintlocks are less prone to failure than percussions are. But since you are apparently either new to the sport, too young to remember or did not subscribe to the old Buckskin Report you will not know such things. For example, I used to by part from Roy Kellor back in the day. He stopped proving barrels since they never failed. Until one of the rifles he built had a barrel failure. He wrote this up in Muzzleblasts. Then, it was a Douglas barre, Douglas would not longer sell him barrels. About this time I say a 45-13/16 Douglas the split up the top flat ( fortunately) from breech face to rear sight. 60 gr of powder and a RB. I have seen and early TC “Hawken” barrel (they were 12L14) the split in the underlug dovetail. Another ML sight, until they “upgraded” had a post with a photo of a man at a re-enactment with no left had. His fowler barrel failed at the WEDDING BANDS. The poster said he thought he know the barrel maker due to the depth of the wedding bands (these are STRESS RISERS BTW). Then the brittle fracture failures of some other TC barrels. AT THE BREECH. But everyone blames the shooter for no loading right. Douglas in an attempt to solve the barrel failure ”problem” without abandoning the cold drawn octagional 12L14 bars, added a heat treating to anneal the the bars. This products a hard oxide scale that would dull a file instantly. It had to to taken off with abrasives then draw filed. But of course if you were not building guns in the early 70s (before Douglas abandoned ML barrels, you would not know this. The editor of the Buckskin Report received a letter from Lasalle Steel. They developed “Fatigue Proof” and Stress Proof) cold rolled (drawn) steel alloys. One was 12L14 and the other 11L44. The are designed and intentionally made brittle (it causes the chips the break), they have added lead, sulfur and phosphorus that help lubricate the cut. BUT these things cause INCLUSIONS and when heated to read they can MIGRATE and cause bigger ”problems”. Higher grades of steel. Krieger, of Krieger barrel fame told a friend that if he watched them make mill run steel on would never use such a thing for anything. Steel is actually graded by its level of inclusions. Gun Barrel quality is lower than “Aircraft“ and “Nuclear” (this is used in refinery pipes etc according the a friend who was a welder in a refinery). And reactors and such. The bars that used to come to a gunmaker I worked for were all stamped GB. But to make such steels require a CLEAN FURNACE. Plus its INSPECTED and must be ordered in furnace melt quantities. Few ML barrel makers order steel in 50000+ pound lots. I gotta go eat lunch. If you want I will post a copy of the Lasalle letter.
If this was the case there would be 12L14 barrels blowing up every day.:rolleyes:
 
IF you look to what the steel makers say and what a metallurgist knowledgeable in such things and FAILURE analysis You might come to a different conclusion. You can proof a cold rolled steel barrel any way you like and it may, shoot for ever, or fail with the first service load or down 20 or 1000 rounds later. But of course if you make barrels from this stuff or if you are uniformed as the the HISTORY then you might have a different opinion. AND flintlocks are less prone to failure than percussions are. But since you are apparently either new to the sport, too young to remember or did not subscribe to the old Buckskin Report you will not know such things. For example, I used to by part from Roy Kellor back in the day. He stopped proving barrels since they never failed. Until one of the rifles he built had a barrel failure. He wrote this up in Muzzleblasts. Then, it was a Douglas barre, Douglas would not longer sell him barrels. About this time I say a 45-13/16 Douglas the split up the top flat ( fortunately) from breech face to rear sight. 60 gr of powder and a RB. I have seen and early TC “Hawken” barrel (they were 12L14) the split in the underlug dovetail. Another ML sight, until they “upgraded” had a post with a photo of a man at a re-enactment with no left had. His fowler barrel failed at the WEDDING BANDS. The poster said he thought he know the barrel maker due to the depth of the wedding bands (these are STRESS RISERS BTW). Then the brittle fracture failures of some other TC barrels. AT THE BREECH. But everyone blames the shooter for no loading right. Douglas in an attempt to solve the barrel failure ”problem” without abandoning the cold drawn octagional 12L14 bars, added a heat treating to anneal the the bars. This products a hard oxide scale that would dull a file instantly. It had to to taken off with abrasives then draw filed. But of course if you were not building guns in the early 70s (before Douglas abandoned ML barrels, you would not know this. The editor of the Buckskin Report received a letter from Lasalle Steel. They developed “Fatigue Proof” and Stress Proof) cold rolled (drawn) steel alloys. One was 12L14 and the other 11L44. The are designed and intentionally made brittle (it causes the chips the break), they have added lead, sulfur and phosphorus that help lubricate the cut. BUT these things cause INCLUSIONS and when heated to read they can MIGRATE and cause bigger ”problems”. Higher grades of steel. Krieger, of Krieger barrel fame told a friend that if he watched them make mill run steel on would never use such a thing for anything. Steel is actually graded by its level of inclusions. Gun Barrel quality is lower than “Aircraft“ and “Nuclear” (this is used in refinery pipes etc according the a friend who was a welder in a refinery). And reactors and such. The bars that used to come to a gunmaker I worked for were all stamped GB. But to make such steels require a CLEAN FURNACE. Plus its INSPECTED and must be ordered in furnace melt quantities. Few ML barrel makers order steel in 50000+ pound lots. I gotta go eat lunch. If you want I will post a copy of the Lasalle letter.

This all very interesting however there are no 12L14 barrels blowing up because of them being brittle.

I have friends in england that have rifle shoppe baker’s and Ferguson’s that are proofed, no negative stories from them.

Again, human error is likely the cause of many issues.

A few ago someone sent me a rifle shoppe brown bess asking for the kit the be finished, i returned it to the owner because the underlugs were stick welded to the barrel, this is an incredible amount of heat to introduce to any type of gun barrel of any steel type,…. Human error. The welded area’s were extremely burned out with crusty welded areas.

Wedding bands are lathe cut, if they’re cut too deep this of course could be an issue, human error.

Even Indian made barrels don’t explode as often as people think they are and they’re not breeched correctly most of the time.

I know Don Getz did a test on barrel safety a few times, loaded a 12L14 barrel with four times the powder charge, no issues. Short started it without ramming, exploded.
 
If this was the case there would be 12L14 barrels blowing up every day.:rolleyes:
Lawyers won’t grow a hand back in any event. AND a good iron barrel was not going to create grenade fragments. In fact the British proof house, at least did a very energetic proof. AND if the barrel bulged and did not burst it could be hammered back to shape and reproved. Some times several times until it passed. Iron is not brittle. I suspect the the issues with still until the late 1860s+- was the reason that the Union‘s Rifle Musket barrels were skelp welded “best iron” was the lack of control of the steel alloys of the time. These BTW were proved with 200 gr of musket powder and a 500 gr Minie spaced 2” off the powder. And if a barrel failed it was examined by a committee to determine why and the workman responsible had to pay for the barrel. I like to point out that years ago my dad shot a Garand with dirt in the barrel. Dunno what ammo he was using probably ball. It put a lump in the barrel about 1.5” behind the front sight. No breaks, no burst, just a short lump. Now tho Garand barrel is pretty thin at this point and the bullet is doing about 2700 by that time, maybe a little more. So buy yourself a 12L14 fowler barrel load it with a standard load with a ball then plug it 3” behind the muzzle. Most cold rolled steel will break. BTW the Garand barrel was 4150 perhaps 41V50. It been in use since the 1930s by the military. It can be shot when red hot and not suffer a failure other than the bore erodes faster. The fact that the TENSILE of 12L14 is 3-4 times the max pressure that can be obtained with BP NONE OF THEM SHOULD EVER FAIL, i.e. burst/break even with a bore obstruction. The fact that some do, proved or not should tell you SOMETHING. Everything I have stated about 12L14 comes from a long time shooter of MLs who happens to be a metallurgist that specialized in failure analysis. BUT getting a metallurgist to comment on a firearms failure/suitable steels is difficult Since they immediately figure its a law suit and don’t wanna be called to court. The other thing… Many years ago, mid-1970s IIRC a certain American company who was mass producing “Hawken” rifles with, at the time 12L14 barrels, was sued several times. But the Handloader defense saved them. Even if the barrel burst at the breech as some did. One in particular “proved” to have been used with smokeless. A friend of mine, who would post on some forums as “Mad Monk” decided to to the chemical analysis on Goex straight form the can. Created the fouling, did the chemical tests and behold he got a “smokeless” result. But the injured party’s lawyer did not bother to have Goex fouling tested. “Mad Monk” used to work for Oxy Chemical and it eventually killed him. Finally. This is ALL info people don’t want to here. Scary. Flintlocks are less prone to failure, perhaps very, than percussion since they have a “softer” pressure rise, but it still worries me. Flintlock shotguns in Britain that were converted were known the fail even though they had passed British proof. We also have to remember that the POWDER was better by about 1800-1830 than it was in 1760-1780 for the most part. There was a change in powder making about 1770 that I am not going go into. The old Buckskin Report would call a spade a spade and it put it under in the end. You cannot print the truth with consequences. It was amazing the number of failure reports that came into John’s office at the time. But they did not appear in Muzzleblasts or other magazines. It can PO the advertisers. So there is a LOT you never see in ANY gun magazine. Have written articles and have a friend who has written literally thousands for various big names I can tell you that you don’t find anything that might injure or insult and advertiser since this is where they make the money. SO even if there was blowup every week you won’t hear of it and the shooter is gonna blame himself and shut up so people won’t know how “stupid” he was since MLS “never blow up” unless the shooter loads them wrong….. Some of the photos I have seen over the years where the barrel “broke” with not stretching are pretty scary. In modern firearms with much higher intensity powder an overload with at worst bulge something. However, an under load of some powders like IMRs etc or some pistol powder will cause brittle fractures even with modern steels and it can be anything from a 357 mag, a 45 Colt to a 50-140 Sharps reproduction (tested to 50K psi in 45-70 with not even a stuck case) to a 300 Win Mag. It WILL break and show little or no distortion. Just break since its possible to convert smokeless powders into a high explosive by loading too light. Like trying to creat BP or cast bullet velocities in a large case and a powder like IMR 4831 or IMR 3031 or Bullseye, or Red Dot. Unique loads published by lyman for DECADES were notorious for ringing rifle chambers. Ruger told my employer, when we got one back) that they had Rugers in 45-70 come in with 150 separate rings in the chamber. This was known and in the 1930s, soon after IMRs were developed and it was documented by Phil Sharpe, if you know who he is and have read his book…. So while you CAN destroy a modern steel barrel 4140/4150 it can’t be done with blackpowder. But everyone is an “expert” but they have not read or seen what I have or had communication over the almost 50 years with the people I have. Here some excerpts from The Buckskin Report.
version=1&uuid=8A93BA0E-34A1-4BB9-9961-BE01161C60C3&mode=compatible&noloc=1.jpeg
version=1&uuid=EE31AA8C-B89C-43AE-80E3-93D596D91EB5&mode=compatible&noloc=1.jpeg
version=1&uuid=9CABD75A-5955-452C-9AA8-61CFE8A3C4FF&mode=compatible&noloc=1.jpeg
 
Lawyers won’t grow a hand back in any event. AND a good iron barrel was not going to create grenade fragments. In fact the British proof house, at least did a very energetic proof. AND if the barrel bulged and did not burst it could be hammered back to shape and reproved. Some times several times until it passed. Iron is not brittle. I suspect the the issues with still until the late 1860s+- was the reason that the Union‘s Rifle Musket barrels were skelp welded “best iron” was the lack of control of the steel alloys of the time. These BTW were proved with 200 gr of musket powder and a 500 gr Minie spaced 2” off the powder. And if a barrel failed it was examined by a committee to determine why and the workman responsible had to pay for the barrel. I like to point out that years ago my dad shot a Garand with dirt in the barrel. Dunno what ammo he was using probably ball. It put a lump in the barrel about 1.5” behind the front sight. No breaks, no burst, just a short lump. Now tho Garand barrel is pretty thin at this point and the bullet is doing about 2700 by that time, maybe a little more. So buy yourself a 12L14 fowler barrel load it with a standard load with a ball then plug it 3” behind the muzzle. Most cold rolled steel will break. BTW the Garand barrel was 4150 perhaps 41V50. It been in use since the 1930s by the military. It can be shot when red hot and not suffer a failure other than the bore erodes faster. The fact that the TENSILE of 12L14 is 3-4 times the max pressure that can be obtained with BP NONE OF THEM SHOULD EVER FAIL, i.e. burst/break even with a bore obstruction. The fact that some do, proved or not should tell you SOMETHING. Everything I have stated about 12L14 comes from a long time shooter of MLs who happens to be a metallurgist that specialized in failure analysis. BUT getting a metallurgist to comment on a firearms failure/suitable steels is difficult Since they immediately figure its a law suit and don’t wanna be called to court. The other thing… Many years ago, mid-1970s IIRC a certain American company who was mass producing “Hawken” rifles with, at the time 12L14 barrels, was sued several times. But the Handloader defense saved them. Even if the barrel burst at the breech as some did. One in particular “proved” to have been used with smokeless. A friend of mine, who would post on some forums as “Mad Monk” decided to to the chemical analysis on Goex straight form the can. Created the fouling, did the chemical tests and behold he got a “smokeless” result. But the injured party’s lawyer did not bother to have Goex fouling tested. “Mad Monk” used to work for Oxy Chemical and it eventually killed him. Finally. This is ALL info people don’t want to here. Scary. Flintlocks are less prone to failure, perhaps very, than percussion since they have a “softer” pressure rise, but it still worries me. Flintlock shotguns in Britain that were converted were known the fail even though they had passed British proof. We also have to remember that the POWDER was better by about 1800-1830 than it was in 1760-1780 for the most part. There was a change in powder making about 1770 that I am not going go into. The old Buckskin Report would call a spade a spade and it put it under in the end. You cannot print the truth with consequences. It was amazing the number of failure reports that came into John’s office at the time. But they did not appear in Muzzleblasts or other magazines. It can PO the advertisers. So there is a LOT you never see in ANY gun magazine. Have written articles and have a friend who has written literally thousands for various big names I can tell you that you don’t find anything that might injure or insult and advertiser since this is where they make the money. SO even if there was blowup every week you won’t hear of it and the shooter is gonna blame himself and shut up so people won’t know how “stupid” he was since MLS “never blow up” unless the shooter loads them wrong….. Some of the photos I have seen over the years where the barrel “broke” with not stretching are pretty scary. In modern firearms with much higher intensity powder an overload with at worst bulge something. However, an under load of some powders like IMRs etc or some pistol powder will cause brittle fractures even with modern steels and it can be anything from a 357 mag, a 45 Colt to a 50-140 Sharps reproduction (tested to 50K psi in 45-70 with not even a stuck case) to a 300 Win Mag. It WILL break and show little or no distortion. Just break since its possible to convert smokeless powders into a high explosive by loading too light. Like trying to creat BP or cast bullet velocities in a large case and a powder like IMR 4831 or IMR 3031 or Bullseye, or Red Dot. Unique loads published by lyman for DECADES were notorious for ringing rifle chambers. Ruger told my employer, when we got one back) that they had Rugers in 45-70 come in with 150 separate rings in the chamber. This was known and in the 1930s, soon after IMRs were developed and it was documented by Phil Sharpe, if you know who he is and have read his book…. So while you CAN destroy a modern steel barrel 4140/4150 it can’t be done with blackpowder. But everyone is an “expert” but they have not read or seen what I have or had communication over the almost 50 years with the people I have. Here some excerpts from The Buckskin Report.View attachment 250954View attachment 250955View attachment 250956


Well since you’re the expert here, why don’t you go ahead and take matters into your own hands, put Rice, Hoyt, Rayl, Coogle and Whiteacre out of business…. Since they all use 12L14 steel for black powder barrels.

While you claim to have evidence to show the inferiority of a product there are still no incidents of 12L14 barrels exploding because of the steel alloy they’re made from.

I’ve asked metallurgists before whats the big hang up with 12L14 for blackpowder, they all have said the same thing, its fine for blackpowder.

I’m not getting scientific here, just stating what is and has been for nearly 50 years now.
 
Lawyers won’t grow a hand back in any event. AND a good iron barrel was not going to create grenade fragments. In fact the British proof house, at least did a very energetic proof. AND if the barrel bulged and did not burst it could be hammered back to shape and reproved. Some times several times until it passed. Iron is not brittle. I suspect the the issues with still until the late 1860s+- was the reason that the Union‘s Rifle Musket barrels were skelp welded “best iron” was the lack of control of the steel alloys of the time. These BTW were proved with 200 gr of musket powder and a 500 gr Minie spaced 2” off the powder. And if a barrel failed it was examined by a committee to determine why and the workman responsible had to pay for the barrel. I like to point out that years ago my dad shot a Garand with dirt in the barrel. Dunno what ammo he was using probably ball. It put a lump in the barrel about 1.5” behind the front sight. No breaks, no burst, just a short lump. Now tho Garand barrel is pretty thin at this point and the bullet is doing about 2700 by that time, maybe a little more. So buy yourself a 12L14 fowler barrel load it with a standard load with a ball then plug it 3” behind the muzzle. Most cold rolled steel will break. BTW the Garand barrel was 4150 perhaps 41V50. It been in use since the 1930s by the military. It can be shot when red hot and not suffer a failure other than the bore erodes faster. The fact that the TENSILE of 12L14 is 3-4 times the max pressure that can be obtained with BP NONE OF THEM SHOULD EVER FAIL, i.e. burst/break even with a bore obstruction. The fact that some do, proved or not should tell you SOMETHING. Everything I have stated about 12L14 comes from a long time shooter of MLs who happens to be a metallurgist that specialized in failure analysis. BUT getting a metallurgist to comment on a firearms failure/suitable steels is difficult Since they immediately figure its a law suit and don’t wanna be called to court. The other thing… Many years ago, mid-1970s IIRC a certain American company who was mass producing “Hawken” rifles with, at the time 12L14 barrels, was sued several times. But the Handloader defense saved them. Even if the barrel burst at the breech as some did. One in particular “proved” to have been used with smokeless. A friend of mine, who would post on some forums as “Mad Monk” decided to to the chemical analysis on Goex straight form the can. Created the fouling, did the chemical tests and behold he got a “smokeless” result. But the injured party’s lawyer did not bother to have Goex fouling tested. “Mad Monk” used to work for Oxy Chemical and it eventually killed him. Finally. This is ALL info people don’t want to here. Scary. Flintlocks are less prone to failure, perhaps very, than percussion since they have a “softer” pressure rise, but it still worries me. Flintlock shotguns in Britain that were converted were known the fail even though they had passed British proof. We also have to remember that the POWDER was better by about 1800-1830 than it was in 1760-1780 for the most part. There was a change in powder making about 1770 that I am not going go into. The old Buckskin Report would call a spade a spade and it put it under in the end. You cannot print the truth with consequences. It was amazing the number of failure reports that came into John’s office at the time. But they did not appear in Muzzleblasts or other magazines. It can PO the advertisers. So there is a LOT you never see in ANY gun magazine. Have written articles and have a friend who has written literally thousands for various big names I can tell you that you don’t find anything that might injure or insult and advertiser since this is where they make the money. SO even if there was blowup every week you won’t hear of it and the shooter is gonna blame himself and shut up so people won’t know how “stupid” he was since MLS “never blow up” unless the shooter loads them wrong….. Some of the photos I have seen over the years where the barrel “broke” with not stretching are pretty scary. In modern firearms with much higher intensity powder an overload with at worst bulge something. However, an under load of some powders like IMRs etc or some pistol powder will cause brittle fractures even with modern steels and it can be anything from a 357 mag, a 45 Colt to a 50-140 Sharps reproduction (tested to 50K psi in 45-70 with not even a stuck case) to a 300 Win Mag. It WILL break and show little or no distortion. Just break since its possible to convert smokeless powders into a high explosive by loading too light. Like trying to creat BP or cast bullet velocities in a large case and a powder like IMR 4831 or IMR 3031 or Bullseye, or Red Dot. Unique loads published by lyman for DECADES were notorious for ringing rifle chambers. Ruger told my employer, when we got one back) that they had Rugers in 45-70 come in with 150 separate rings in the chamber. This was known and in the 1930s, soon after IMRs were developed and it was documented by Phil Sharpe, if you know who he is and have read his book…. So while you CAN destroy a modern steel barrel 4140/4150 it can’t be done with blackpowder. But everyone is an “expert” but they have not read or seen what I have or had communication over the almost 50 years with the people I have. Here some excerpts from The Buckskin Report.View attachment 250954View attachment 250955View attachment 250956
Good grief, who in the hell is going to read all that?
 
There also wasn’t as much concern over safety in the 18th century as there is today.

Consumers today want to know they have a high quality durable product that will outlive their expected useful life.

Most people will often associate thicker and heavier with better quality.

This may be true, but modern shotgun barrels are very thin and can handle much modern smokeless propellants with ease.
 
Proof is irrelevant to brittle steels. It might pass 5 proofs and then fail a short round count later. Because it does not tolerate internal pressure well when its cold rolled and the inclusions are another problem. But cause the same thing. And stress relief is not a cure either. Here is a steel maker on the subject.
 

Attachments

  • LaSalle Steel letter001.jpeg
    LaSalle Steel letter001.jpeg
    1.6 MB · Views: 0
In the meantime, how about a three page treatise on why anyone would say a barrel (presumably muzzle end, not breech end) is "too thin for round balls"?

After considering Dave Person's reply, I'm inclined to think the whole thing revolves around accuracy/consistency being more difficult to obtain with a dainty, lightweight shotgun than with a thicker, more robust, stiffer pipe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top