|
|
|
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
|
31
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
1,059
guests, and
4
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,509
Posts562,204
Members14,588
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250 |
Paper or plastic Robert?
Your transferring Emil's smallbore guilt problems to the Brits now I see!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
RC - which of the Brit guns were experiencing frame cracks or burst barrels? I'm aware of the debate, but not of any actual events behind it. Can you refer me to the Thomas data? Is it in one of his books?
B French - I'd agree that as the chamber pressure approaches the working pressure of the gun design, hull match to chamber length and hull thickness become increasingly important. However, when the pressure is kept significantly lower, then these are not big factors. Anyone remember if Bell tested paper cases?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,462 Likes: 89
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,462 Likes: 89 |
I'm sure Robert will produce....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
That crack doesn't look good. Doesn't seem like it would happen with the top locking bolt. KurtD - the back thrust of the shell will put a tension load on the frame no matter where it locks. The relatively sharp corner is a stress riser for the frame. Therefore, it is the spot most likely to crack. And it did. To avoid cracking, it needs a larger radius and better metal/more "meat."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,096
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,096 |
Rocketman,
I told this subject was a pigeon magnet...I'm out
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
RC - I sincerely wish you would stay in and add what you know.
You have questioned the use of paper hulls. I asked, "why?" BFrench made a good point on hull thickness. I have countered with low pressure. You have supposed that there were actually events to prompt the Brit discusion. I'm looking for more information. I call this a good discussion.
Bait is presented, not force fed. Ignore anything you suspect to be bait. Otherwise, please stay in the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812 |
Is there a shortage of sarcasm? But I agree that the D. of R.D. should have taken care of this one by now. Isn't it a fact that occlusion of the cone does raise pressure? Isn't it also known that the pressure rise isn't significant for gun or owner if the load characteristics (pressure, velocity, payload) of the longer shell are comparable to those of the shorter shell for which the gun was designed?
jack
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812 |
See "danger in case length"; pp. 160-2 in Garwood's 1st Gun Book. From tests conducted by himself, reports no inordinate rise in pressure or difference in ballistic performance in 2.5" chambered guns, given that contents of of 70mm shell are comparable to those of 65mm shell.
jack
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
