Truth about DOM tubing barrels

[George]

Just for the record. Gun barrels of the colonial period were wrapped around a mandrel but were not butt welded. They were lap welded. Each side was scarfed and the weld was lapped over. there is a difference. They were on average thicker than the ones we have today also. All of them were proofed.

I guess it depends on which source you choose to accept. I just watched the video of Wallace Gussler making one, and he made a point of the fact that they were butt welded.

There were no proofing laws or proofing houses in America in the colonial period that I'm aware of. That is still true today, there is no US law which says guns have to be proofed. The gun making industry is self-regulated, and whether each barrel is proofed is entirely up to them. The first proofing law in England was in 1675, but it and several which followed were not effective, and mandatory proofing didn't happen until 1868, according to The Gun and its Development by W. W. Greener.

Spence

 

[Xtramad]

If a barrel survives the proof load, I'd use it with complete confidence even if it was made from DOM.

 

[jerrywh]

No disrespect intended but Wallace Gusler is not the bible.

There are a lot of other sources possibly more reliable than Wallace. Besides he may have been pretty liberal in his definitions. Do you know what a scarf is on a forge weld?? Barrel makers here in the colonies learned their trade from Europe or England. Barrels were forged here the same way. A but weld is the worst kind of weld. Twist barrels were but welded by raming them on the anvil but the seam ran around the barrel rather than lengthwise. Barrels were scarfed and lap welded in All of Europe and here. I have cut them in half and examined them.
There doesn't need to be a proof house in order to proof a barrel. Gunmakers proofed their own barrels. The colonies were subject to English law for most of their existence. English law demanded barrels be proofed what do you suppose they did here in America??
Do you really think Jacob dickert sold guns that were not tested?? Or Fortney? Or Beck? I don't think so.
I have been around and doing this stuff just as long as Gusler. I was forging gun parts way before the gunmaker of Williamsburg was taped.
All of US are subject to being wrong. I have a lot of reference to the fact. A scafed lap weld has about twice the strength of a but weld. A butt weld is about as good as a galvanized water pipe.

 

[George]

Never thought Gussler was the bible. Or anyone else. He is just the only one I've ever heard discuss the matter who had actually made one.

I don't know exactly what a scarf is, but I can imagine the basic difference between a butt weld and an overlap. I would think an overlap would be stronger, but I'm no blacksmith.

All info I can find indicates English law didn't even demand proofing in England until 1868. That's what Greener, one of the biggest English gunmakers said, and who would know better?

You may be right about Dickert, et al, I have no way of knowing. Is there some indication that they did?

Unfortunately none of this helps BillnOregon decide about a DOM barrel.

Spence

 

[tg]

"If a barrel survives the proof load, I'd use it with complete confidence even if it was made from DOM."

I do not think would want a barrel that had been subjected to a massive proof load, it only proved that the barrel did not fail THAT time, if before and after xrays and any possible testing had neen done it might make a difference, does anyone have any reliable info on numbers of tubing or conventional made barrels that have failed in the last 20 years and the confirmed reasons for failure, I often wonder if we are fearfull of that one T Rex that may still be hiding in the forest waiting to pounce, I am not a tubing barrel fan I just don't know one way or the other and examples of failure are a good indication of which way to lean if one does not know.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

i picked up a really heavy walled 5 ft piece of high pressure steam pipe years ago and intended to make a smooth bore. Showed to a machinist buddy, who said it would be like russian roulet maybe not the first shot, maybe not the 200th, but eventually it would likely fail.

 

[matt denison]

Those forged barrels were scarf welded. I thought it was common knowledge. Imagine trying to butt weld something like a barrel on an anvil. The physical operation just doesn't make sense to me. Welding with electric/gas allows making a puddle and filling with rod. Not so on an anvil with hammers. You need to scarf the edges of the material and overlap them, heat and beat.

Whether Greener has his dates right or wrong about the laws the facts are evident that barrels were proofed in jolly old England by the thousands upon thousands of barrels with the proof stamps that are often used to date antique guns.

I've printed out Zonie's post (thank you Zonie) and will refer to it in future DOM vs. drilled arguements.

I don't know if there is a definitive answer to which is better - it's like the old cast iron vs. aluminum block arguements back in the 60's. Turns out after 40 years that neither side was completely correct.

Personally you will never see me using DOM for a barrel. I'm not making a statement about India-made guns so BillinOregun please don't take offense. You asked a question and you are getting answers. :surrender:

Matt

 

[George]

Whether Greener has his dates right or wrong about the laws the facts are evident that barrels were proofed in jolly old England by the thousands upon thousands of barrels with the proof stamps that are often used to date antique guns.

I never said they were not proofing barrels. I said it was incorrect that they were required by law to do so before 1868. That was the case.

How many drilled ML barrels do you guys think are proofed today? It's not required, so do they do it for every barrel that goes out the door?

Spence

 

[TARL01]

Not a big deal to add this, but the proper use of flux is the key to welding a barrel. It is hard enough to get a high enough heat as it is. But even a white heat needs flux for the weld to hold. Don't ask me how I know :redface: :shake: .
Woody

 

[George]

For what it's worth, the process used to weld the seams of DOM tubing, electric resistance welding, isn't like conventional welding. There are no welding rods, no added material. The current melts the edges of the seam to a liquid, then the edges are forced together and they blend and fuse into one piece. It's as though the seam was never there. The seam is said to be stronger than the material the tube is made from.

Spence

 

[Zonie]

I'm no blacksmith either but when forging material on an anvil all there is to work with is a hammer and a flat (or curved) surface or, in the case of a barrel or tube, a mandrel to support the inside.

If the material was butt welded, where it is wrapped around until the two squared ends meet and one inserted a mandrel to keep the tube from collapsing from the hammer blows, the impacts would be perpendicular to the two ends which would kinda mush them together and may or may not cause them to join. Most likely there would be a lot of voids or unwelded areas in the joint.

If a bevel (or scarf) is formed on the edges where they meet, those bevels will overlap one another so any blow from the hammer will be almost straight down on the joint. This can produce a flawless weld if the blacksmith knows what he's doing.

Xtramad: Think of a proof test as an intentional overstressing of the barrel to detect major flaws.
Also you should know that the very act of proof testing can produce flaws in the material that weren't there before the test.
This is why every part we proof tested at the jet engine company I worked for for 39 years always did non-destructive tests on every part following a proof test.
These tests ranged from Fluorescent Penetrant tests (surface flaws only) to High Energy X-Rays (deep invisible flaws). The post pressure test inspections cost more than the actual pressure test.
Anyway, suffice it to say that a barrel that has passed a proof test does not mean it is safe to shoot unless it has had the post-test inspections.

This is especially true with some low carbon steels which have low elongation properties.

As for the old gunbarrels that were made from iron being proof tested, from all of the reading I've done I have come to the conclusion that it was widely done by gunsmiths.
Even so, there are numerous documented accounts of people loosing their hands, arms and eyes or dying because these 'proofed' barrels exploded when the guns owner fired it.

George: If you want to choose to use DOM for a barrel I would say 'more power to you' if there was no chance of the gun ever being sold to, or fired by someone other than you.
Unfortunately, you cannot guarantee that this will be the case 50 years from now.

 

[jerrywh]

I have a lot of other reliable info on this but this I hope will be sufficient.
http://jwh-flintlocks.net/eng.proofmarks.jpg http://jwh-flintlocks.net/barrel-proofing.jpg
It is impossible to get the slag out of a butt weld on that type of weld unless it is scafed and Lapped. I don't doubt Wallaces ability but concider this. Wallace was only about 17 years old when he did this barrel. It is very likely that he used the words butt welded in place of Lap welded. I have done a lot of forge welding and the flux is usually calcined borax and white sand.
The flux and slag will not be forced out of a butt weld it has to be lapped to be a good weld. The hardest thing I ever welded in a forge was when I welded the pan on the lockplate of a flint lock. That is a real trick.

 

[George]

George: If you want to choose to use DOM for a barrel I would say 'more power to you' if there was no chance of the gun ever being sold to, or fired by someone other than you.
Unfortunately, you cannot guarantee that this will be the case 50 years from now.

So, it's OK with you if I blow my own head off, but you are concerned about the poor slob who will get the gun from my cold, dead hands? You are all heart.


Spence

 

[jerrywh]

Perosonally, I'm worried about the guy standing next to you. :rotf:

 

[George]

Perosonally, I'm worried about the guy standing next to you. :rotf:

No sweat there, Jerry. I always hunt alone and I'm old enough to be expendable.

Spence

 

[jerrywh]

This is how a scarfed weld is prepared. A butt joint would be a vertical joint. The iron is prepared as shown, then heated to over 500°f and fluxed with calcined borax or white sand or both then reheated to the welding temp placed on the anvil in the barrel groove with the mandrel inserted and hammered shut. In this case from left to right. This forces the flux and slag out of the weld.

 

[BillinOregon]

Well, it sounds like the jury remains out on the safety of DOM gun barrels. There are thousands of the Indian guns in use in the U.S. and Canada, and to my knowledge, the only documented blowup was caused by a clogged and obstructed barrel, according to an H.P. White analysis of the barrel. I have been told that at some point, Jackie Brown and Early Rustic Firearms have used DOM for barrels, and I am sure other makers have as well. That doesn't make them safe, but they apparently have a reasonably good track record so far.
I believe the Indian guns are also in fairly wide use in Great Britain, where they must first be proofed. Anyone from the east side of the pond want to confirm that? I frankly would have no qualms about shooting a gun that had been proofed in Britain.

 

[matt denison]

Yes, the post pressure testing is the hard part.

I and an assistent (never try this alone 'cause someone needs to drive you to the ER or call 911) took one of my barrels out to the sand pit to see how far we could load it before it blew. We marked the barel every 1 inch, took meticulous measurements for a base line then proceeded to load it with a typical double load of 160 gr of FF and two balls. Incidentally we found that the second ball needed a thinner patch because of the airlock between the first and second load/ball.

We measured meticulously and found no change. Then bumped the load to 240 grains, boom, measure, record no change. From there we went in 20 grain increments, boom, measure and record no change. It was 90 + degrees, was tedious making the measurements, perhaps 15 minutes each time. It was 2:00 in the afternoon, blazing sun by the time we touched it off with 320 gr. and two balls. Measuerd and found no change. We were out of water, sweating and very tired of loading and measureing. The test would have meant nothing without the meticulous measureing. We called it quits and went back to the cool shop. The barrel held up well. But, I now have a barrel in the cornr that I don't dare sell because I've stressed it and who knows, maybe the next load would have been "the one" that put it over the edge. The end anaylisis is that it was all a waste of time and a good $200 barrel.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

...... I now have a barrel in the cornr that I don't dare sell because I've stressed it and who knows, maybe the next load would have been "the one" that put it over the edge. The end anaylisis is that it was all a waste of time and a good $200 barrel.

laffindog, that was a good post with probably the best advice anyone can give. You had an obviously high quality barrel that you stressed and have wisely decided not to use now. Can you imagine what could happen with a low quality barrel made of mystery metal that has been stressed in the fashion most seem to think is okay? Anything over a 50% overload is a waist of time and effort with possible fatal damage for a latter shooter. Even good barrels are not indestructible folks.

 

[Vaino]

Thanks for the info on your test but unless the projectile is heavy enough to offer enough resistance, not all the powder will burn and some depending on the weight of the projectile, will be blown out the bbl unburnt. So, after so much powder is used to yield max pressure, increasing the charge further just blows unburnt powder out the bbl. Don Getz did a test on a bbl w/ various overloads of BP w/ both ends breeched and a fuse was placed in the TH and they couldn't either bulge or rupture the bbl or blow out the plugs. This test was done on a common leaded steel bbl of which I don't know the number. Your test bbl certainly withstood loads beyond what is "considered" safe....Fred