doublegunshop.com - home
Posted By: Drew Hause Acier Cockerill - 07/22/21 10:04 PM
It has been clearly established that the vast majority of Decarbonized and Fluid Steel “rough forged tubes” used by U.S. double gun makers were sourced from Belgium
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/pub?id=17ixogftgITEblNUWtmFBv96ZvgjK6eFell8GsAWd-KI

The ‘LLH’ of tube maker, Laurent Lochet-Habran has been found on Fox, Baker (S grade with “Flui-tempered Steel”, Baker Standard boxlock with “Nitro Rolled Steel” and ACL in a circle, and Batavia Leaders), Lefever, Crescent (possibly marked “Fluid Temper Steel”), Ithaca (Lewis & Flues with ‘Smokeless Powder Steel’), NID, Lefever Nitro Special, Lefever M-2 single barrel, and Westernfield Deluxe/Western Arms Long Range, Smith Royal, Armor, London, Crown and Nitro barrels and Hunter Arms Fulton and “Ranger” for Sears.
http://www.littlegun.be/arme%20belg...l/a%20lochet%20habran%20laurent%20gb.htm

LLH barrels have been found on Smith guns manufactured from 1909 to 1948.

A 20g Monogram completed March 16, 1912 surfaced in 2015 with 32” barrels stamped “Sir Joseph Whitworth Fluid Compressed Steel/Made to Order” bearing the Whitworth trademark AND a second barrel with ‘2’ on the forend lug, the same SN on the flats, the Hunter Arms “Crown” stamp, clearly showing a ‘LLH’ on the left barrel; but which are also marked “Sir Joseph Whitworth Fluid Compressed Steel”! (See The Journal of the L.C. Smith Collectors Association, Spring 2016)

Many of the tubes marked with LLH also have the ACL in a circle of Acier Cockerill Liegoise, and some with ACM in a circle for Acier Cockerill Manufacture Liegoise which was a tradename used by Manufacture d'Armes à Feu Liégeoise; confirming the source of the steel used in the manufacture of the "rough forged tubes".

1910 L.C. Smith No. 5E Nitro Steel

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]


Both ‘LLH’ and ‘ACL’ are found on the barrels of Belgian guns, Baker S grade, L.C. Smith Armor, London, Crown and Nitro Steel, Ithaca Flues No. 1 Special, and Crescent tradename guns.

Société Anonyme John Cockerill, later Cockerill-Ougrée was the major Belgian steel maker, equivalent to Krupp or Vickers.
http://www.hfinster.de/StahlArt2/archive-CockerillLiege-en.html
Seraing lies along the Meuse River, 6 miles upstream from Liège. It was a hub of Belgium's iron, steel, and machine-building industries. In 1817 the English industrialist John Cockerill (1790-1840) founded in Seraing what was to become one of the largest ironmaking and machinery complexes in Europe.

It seems likely that Krupp licensed Cockerill-Ougrée, as Fluss Stahl Krupp Essen marked tubes stamped with “Acier Cockerill” or with “LLH” of Laurent Lochet-Habran are found on some U.S. maker's barrels.

Some Browning patent Fabrique-Nationale-Herstal very early versions of the A5 shipped to the U.S. between 1903 and 1909 are marked Cockerill Steel. It is not known if FN fabricated barrel tubes or purchased them from LLH, or (more likely) from Jean-Baptiste Delcour-Dupont of Nessonvaux. Jean-Baptiste was the father of Lucien & Oscar Delcour and had been a manager for Pieper & Cie before opening his own shop specializing in Damascus barrels.

The Delcour Dupont Crown over D mark has been found on Smith (“Crown Steel”), Fox, Meriden/Sears, Baker (“Homotensile Steel”), Ithaca NID (“Best Fluid Steel”) and Lefever Nitro Special & A-grade guns. Canons Delcour S.A. was registered in 1921, and remained in business until about 1968 when they were acquired by Fabrique National de Herstal.

Cockerill steel tubes

The 1918 Sears catalog states the Hunter Arms Fulton Gladiator “barrels are made of a high grade carbon steel, having a tensile strength of 85 to 95 thousand pounds to the square inch.”

Walt Snyder graciously shared a 1919 Ithaca Gun Co. letter from A.P. Curtis, General Manager requesting tensile strength testing on a section “cut from a barrel made in Belgium” to be performed by E.J. Stormer of Racine, Wisconsin. The letter did not indicate if the barrels were “Smokeless Powder Steel” used on the Field grade, “Fluid Steel” or “Nitro Steel” used on the No. 1 and No. 1 1/2, or Cockerill Steel used on the No. 1 Special (discontinued that year).
Tensile strength was reported to be “about 70,000” psi. Composition was similar to AISI 1030.

Composition analysis by Optical Emission Spectroscopy (OES)

A c. 1912 Lefever Arms Co. DS “Dura Nitro Steel” (without the LLH or ACL marks) was AISI 1035

A post-WWI Parker “Vulcan” barrel was AISI 1030. A pre-WWI “Trojan” barrel was very similar in composition but with a slightly higher carbon and was AISI 1035. Neither carried the LLH or ACL marks. (Courtesy of Dave Suponski)

A c. 1925 Crescent Fire Arms “Genuine Armory Steel” barrel with the ‘LLH’ mark showed it to be non-standard (high phosphorus) AISI 1040 low alloy medium carbon steel with a tensile strength of 104,000 psi.

Armor Steel Barrel analysis

LCSCA member Phil Carr donated an obstructional burst 1909 No. 00 Armor steel barrel, with both the LLH and ACL marks, which was tested by METL here in Phoenix. The barrels also carried a ‘C’ believed to represent Crucible Steel, the likely tube importer. It should be noted that a 1910 No. 00 Armor steel barrel carries the same marks.

1909 L.C. Smith No. 00 with LLH and ACL over-stamped by Armor Steel

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]

The barrel is AISI 1030 medium carbon steel with a very slightly elevated Phosphorus at .049%; standard < .04%. It had very low concentrations of Nickel .04% and Chromium .02%.
Tensile strength was 90,000 psi with a Yield strength of 46,800 psi and a remarkable Elongation of 22%.
The industrial standards for AISI 1030 are Ultimate strength 68,000 – 78,000; Yield 38,000 – 48,000; and Elongation 15-25%.
The low Yield strength and high % Elongation would have some advantage as a shotgun barrel material.

What does this addition information mean? As previously observed, a study of one sample does not establish statistical significance, and barrel composition could change over time, but this does add something to our knowledge.
I think we have some evidence that the Cockerill steel (confirmed with the ACL mark) “rough forged tubes” used by U.S. double gun makers both pre- and post-WWI was (mostly?) AISI 1030 or 1035; not 4140 Chrome Moly but pretty good barrel material.

What we still do not know is if there is any difference in composition between the Armor, Royal, London, Crown or Nitro Steel barrels used by Hunter Arms Co., and donations of samples of each would be most welcome.
Posted By: LeFusil Re: Acier Cockerill - 07/22/21 10:54 PM
Damn. That’s pretty interesting stuff, Drew. Excellent post. Thanks for sharing.
Posted By: ed good Re: Acier Cockerill - 07/23/21 02:09 AM
a question is, did hunter arms inventory different barrel steels of different configurations or did they just inventory one grade of steel and then just stamp it to match their marketing needs?...from a production control view, inventorying six different barrel steels is potentially a nightmare...it is so much simpler to just inventory one grade of steel. and then stamp it to order...

and perhaps parker, who had a similar marketing strategy as smith, did the same thing?

whereas, fox and ithaca for the most part, did not make barrel steel markings a sales feature...

thanks to dr drew for this interesting thread...
Posted By: Rocketman Re: Acier Cockerill - 07/23/21 02:21 AM
Very good set of research!! Tip 'o the hat.
Posted By: Ghostrider Re: Acier Cockerill - 07/23/21 02:33 AM
Great contribution Doc.
Posted By: Ted Schefelbein Re: Acier Cockerill - 07/23/21 03:12 AM
I’m wary of turn-of-the century fluid steel tubes. It is one thing to label steel produced in 1908 as 1030 or 1035, another thing entirely to have confidence in the skill of who produced it (see Titanic).

Seeing that 1040 alloy steel was showing up in the mid 1920s demonstrates better quality materials and more advanced production techniques had been developed with time.

Interesting, as always, Drew.

Best,
Ted
Posted By: ed good Re: Acier Cockerill - 07/23/21 10:27 AM
safest bet, is to shoot low pressure ammo in any old gun made prior to ww2...

an dont burn 91 octane gas in an engine designed for 87 octane...
Posted By: Stanton Hillis Re: Acier Cockerill - 07/23/21 11:58 AM
Originally Posted by ed good
an dont burn 91 octane gas in an engine designed for 87 octane...

Obviously you know not of what you speak. Higher octane gasoline does NOT provide higher energy output on combustion. High performance engines burn high octane gas for one reason ........ to prevent pre-ignition (detonation, or spark knock) which will destroy a high compression engine in short notice. Some racers don't even know this, but it is a fact that engine builders know well.

If a parallel exists between shotgun barrels and internal combustion engines it is not what you propose.
Posted By: ed good Re: Acier Cockerill - 07/23/21 01:50 PM
stan, you missed the point...advise above is to use the fuel an engine was designed to burn...so as to minimize the risk of performance and failure issues...

same principle applies to shotguns...use ammo that generates pressures of the ammo that the gun was designed to safely shoot...
Posted By: Stanton Hillis Re: Acier Cockerill - 07/23/21 02:41 PM
No, I missed nothing. You used a faulty example and will never admit it.
Posted By: ed good Re: Acier Cockerill - 07/23/21 02:58 PM
well stan, of course you are right and i am wrong...as hit is awl ways thus...
Posted By: Drew Hause Re: Acier Cockerill - 07/23/21 03:28 PM
It is also well documented that turn-of-the-century shells generated the same or even greater pressures than today's standard loads
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F2sQuPm05IE4VWYYnCkvuXmYEzQoWd_SQgaAfUOZEFU/preview

ed - if you have evidence to the contrary please post it.

And from a comment in Sporting Guns and Gunpowders regarding an additional study after the 1891 Proof House Trial Report, and published in The Field June 6, 1891 by Horatio F. Phillips, a “staff experimenter” with The Field. This is in reference to the standard tubes used in the Trial which had no chambers cut and a greater wall thickness than finished barrels
“These experiments serve to show what a very large margin of strength there is in a good gun barrel, when ordinary charges are used. The (Damascus) barrels which gave way earliest…had withstood the strains of…about four times as great as the regulation proof; while the steel barrels (Siemens-Martin and English “Superior Barrel Steel”) were tested…with charges averaging nearly five times as much as the ordinary proof-charge.”

It has also been well documented that the "rough forged tubes" were first proved in Belgium, and the finished guns were proved by the U.S. makers in-house.
Belgian First Obligatory Proof Load for “Double-Barreled Breech-Loading Sporting Guns” 12g breech plugged tubes was 11.8 Drams powder and 1.12 oz. shot

Ithaca advertisements stated that barrels were proved with a “double charge of powder and 1 1/2 times the normal shot load”; or (possibly) 6 1/2 Drams Black Powder with 1 2/3 oz. of shot if the standard load was 1 1/8 oz. shot and 3 1/4 Dram Eq. Bulk Smokeless.
Posted By: ed good Re: Acier Cockerill - 07/23/21 05:24 PM
evidence to the contrary of what? i take no issue with what you say here...
Posted By: Ghostrider Re: Acier Cockerill - 07/24/21 11:53 AM
Doc once again my hats off to you for your dedication to researching all of this information and providing it to us.
JOB WELL DONE.
Posted By: L. Brown Re: Acier Cockerill - 07/25/21 02:49 PM
As always, Doc Drew . . . very interesting and very useful information. Thanks!
Posted By: tanky Re: Acier Cockerill - 07/28/21 03:00 AM
Drew, I hope some day that you will compile all the info you have learned in a book. I would certainly buy it. It would also be interesting to know the compositions of the various makers frames. Some frames exposed to sweaty dirty hands for ages lose their case colors and take on a silvery appearance like Fox guns. Others such as the Remington 1894 tend to get etched thru the case hardening producing zillions of minute pits. This has been my observation and I wonder what the difference is in the steel composition. I also find it very interesting that the lowly Crescent had the same steel tubes as more expensive guns. I always suspected that the Crescent wasn't all that bad a gun. It just lacked the better fitting of the other guns and the machining was not quite as precision. Design wise they probably had the most simple cocking design on the hammerless guns.
Posted By: Drew Hause Re: Acier Cockerill - 07/28/21 11:53 AM
Tanky: I have 5 frame analyses at the bottom here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dnRLZgcuHfx7uFOHvHCUGnGFiLiset-DTTEK8OtPYVA/edit

July 1, 1920 "American Machinist" published an Ordnance Salvage Board Surplus Property Sale of almost 75,000 pounds of “Spec. Shape Gun Steel” from the A.H. Fox Gun Co. with C .15-.25%, Mn .5-.7%, S & P < .06% = AISI 1020
https://books.google.com/books?id=ezRMAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA409&lpg
© The DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com