S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,932
Posts550,848
Members14,460
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,561 Likes: 249
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,561 Likes: 249 |
....The fact that this barrel bulged rather than burst simply means for whatever reason the pressure exceed the elastic limit, but not the ultimate. This does not mean it was of superior metal, but rather more likely it was of rather soft metal with a rather low elastic limit. While freely admitting for it to have occurred in Both Barrels is at best highly unusual I still say it has all the appearance of a localized obstructional bulge. May well have been brought on by.... Shotgunjones mentioned these were good tubes, and I agree. I think you summed what might be going on. While it may(?) not be their fault, the barrels did fail. I believe all gun barrel steels are considered 'soft'. The lucky thing was that it failed slowly, and signs showed that it was probably closer to it's ultimate limit than before the bulges. The problem with being good tubes is the commentary is completely ignoring the thickness of the tubes. What's the point of having a barrel thickness gauge if the only requirement is to check barrels for obstructions and being alert to signs that an obstruction might have occurred, such as a squib load. I think the British proof houses are plenty evidence that good tubes going in to the test, don't always come out the other end as good tubes. The point being that if obstructions aren't part of the test, then 'relatively', I think obscene, low over pressures can damage gun barrels. If it were my money buying a gun with 'original' barrel and bore specs, I think I'd expect the barrel patina to nearly obscure the damascus pattern. Maybe, the bore would be a little frosty in likely places. Refinishing gun metal is supposed to remove 'negligible' amounts of metal, but I don't think that is always so. If(?) no obstruction were present, then there seems to be little point to worrying about 'reasonable' over pressures. We seem to worry about over pressure when every thing is going well. Some metallurgists will say that the metal in the bulge is likely stronger now. Why not tap it down and call it good.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,058 Likes: 57
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,058 Likes: 57 |
Miller is wise.
But an identical double obstruction...
You don't suppose do you....
That this was a 28/16 accident?
"The price of good shotgunnery is constant practice" - Fred Kimble
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,386 Likes: 1324
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,386 Likes: 1324 |
Why not tap it down and call it good. Doesn't work that easily, at least not for me. You can't remove the bulge between the ribs, and by the time you have tapped the bulge outside the ribs down the ribs have popped loose. Removing bulges is wasted time, IMO. SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,527 Likes: 354
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,527 Likes: 354 |
Burrard made the point that an obstructional ring bulge usually occurs 3/4” to 1 1/4” beyond the leading edge of the obstruction, and is invariably associated with lifting and bending of the rib. (which I do not see in the images)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,561 Likes: 249
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,561 Likes: 249 |
Why not tap it down and call it good. Doesn't work that easily, at least not for me. You can't remove the bulge between the ribs, and by the time you have tapped the bulge outside the ribs down the ribs have popped loose. Removing bulges is wasted time, IMO. SRH I think, the more rare a gun, the more hoops that are worth jumping through to get it fixed as close to original as possible. I was thinking that while cold working might technically increase the tensile strength of the bulge area, the comment about good tubes had to do with the ductility that the barrels showed. That characteristic would probably be lost around that area. I hadn't noticed, in the pictures, a lifted rib or signs of cracks in the forearm wood either. It doesn't mean anything, but it might be supposed that this is not a 'ring' bulge.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,985 Likes: 894
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,985 Likes: 894 |
Bro' Drew. Your photo is not a bulge. It is a rupture. I don't see lifting and bending of the rib in the gunsunlimited picture, but, that doesn't mean it isn't there. Also, an obstruction in a bore is just that, until it isn't. An obstruction that clears miliseconds before yield is met will cause a distortion to some degree, if not a rupture. Pure arm chair quarterbacking from here in cyberspace. But, interesting, anyway.
Best, Ted
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,211 Likes: 224
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,211 Likes: 224 |
I think Sherman Bell measured wall thinning in the area of bulges. I don't think the thinning would return to the original wall thickness after "tapping" back into place.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,527 Likes: 354
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,527 Likes: 354 |
Experts on Guns and Shooting George Teasdale Teasdale-Buckell 1900 http://books.google.com/books?id=4xRmHkr7Lp8C&pg=PA373&dqOn the subject of steel v. Damascus, Mr Stephen Grant is very clear, and much prefers Damascus for hard working guns. He related an anecdote of one of his patrons, whose keeper stupidly put a 12-bore cartridge into his master’s gun without knowing that he had previously inserted a 20-case, which had stuffed up the barrel. Fortunately, no burst occurred, but a big bulge, which, however, Mr Grant hammered down, and the gun is now as good as ever. 1902 16g No. 0 L.C. Smith. Chambers extended to 2 7/8" with wall thickness at the end of the chamber of .096" Looks pretty thin on radiography But the MWT at the bulge was .102. Bore in bulge was .680; 3 1/2" .660" with WT .114" Sad 12g Smith 4E with nice Chain Damascus with two bulges The biggest bulge was at 4 1/2" with bore at 3 1/2" .735" and at the bulge .758". Wall thickness at 3 1/2" was .118, 4" .092", in the bulge at 4 1/2" .078", and 5" .073". 4 1/2" non-bulged barrel was .090" and 5" .080"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Those wall thickness you cite on the Smith's there Drew are certainly adequate. These as well as the one in question all still have the appearance of an obstruction. We certainly have to remember that Teasdale's thoughts were written in 1900. Most steel barrels of that time were made with a very low carbon steel, on the order of a 1008 or 1010. It did not take the industry long to begin upping the carbon content to something on the order of 1040 & soon going to alloy steels with other elements which increased the strength. With the possible exception of those very early low carbon barrels any pressure which would bulge or burst a "Good" steel barrel would do likewise to the finest Damascus ever built. I say this as a great admirer of Damascus, but their "Beauty" is not in their "Superior" Strength.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,561 Likes: 249
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,561 Likes: 249 |
It's not so easy to find pictures of proof house failures, but the CIP does have a short video, in the 'proof' category, of failures. The reason I use that as an example is because a proof house, particularly if they show it, should have followed their procedures in which the barrels were fully measured and inspected prior to firing proof loads. In other words, free of obstructions.
Anyway, most of the shown failures appear to be twelve gauge guns, and chances are they would be thought to be obstruction failures. One picture in particular shows a 'banana peel' muzzle, lowest barrel pressure(?), blow up. Chances are the first thought would be someone stuck it in some mud or snow.
Maybe the topic gun was an obstruction, maybe not. A side thought on 'tapping down' a bulge. Material would have thinned when it was 'stretched' to a larger surface area, but the material is still there. Not likely at all, but theoretically it could be returned to where it was originally. Finishing would likely take more off, but if decent thickness remains, there're probably some unique guns to make the attempt. It's probably more common to raise a dent, the same thing in reverse.
|
|
|
|
|