doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Dove-tailed versis Chopper-lumps

They used a patent by Frank Burton, 1785765, Dec 23, 1930.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=pF5eAAA...ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA

In the abstract, Burton refers to the "dovetail-grove".

On page 59 of his book, Schwing talks about dovetailing. He says the Burton patent represents a "new system of joining."

Pete

Not to belabor the point but Schwing says they also soldered the barrels together with 50/50 lead/tin solder which has a very low melting poing (compared to brazing).

Best,

Mike

Wait a minute there. Those tests don't say nearly as much as some here contend. It's like comparing apples and oranges. The joint pin on the 21 is further from the breech face than any of the other guns. While I don't know the various wall thickness of the guns compared I suspect the 21 is no light weight in that department and may even be the thickest of the lot. But the most critical thing has to be the distance from joint pin to breach face. This factor will dwarf all others when assessing how much strain an action will endure before failure. Quality of steel is way down the list.
nial

Well we don't know how the guns that failed failed. We don't know if the barrels burst or the bolting system failed or the locks quit functioning or the stock broke. We don't know how failure was defined. Was off face and/or loose defined as failure or failure to fire defined as failure etc...

Nice bit of gamesmanship by Mr. Olin and company I think.

Still a good, rugged and reliable gun.

Best,

Mike

There are too many variables to categorically say any one thing is what makes one gun superior in strength to another. So, I think you hit the nail on the head: apples to oranges. But you can determine that one gun is stronger than another thru testing. In the end, that's useful to some people. If one company uses steel that is 20% stronger than the next guy, but does not utilize it efficiently in his design, it may result in a lightweight but understrength product or a product that is heavier than desired and stronger than necessary for the job.

I'm in the airplane biz. We can make stronger airplanes, but they become less efficient. Somewhere there is a range of balance of the requirements. Within this range, there is an optimum design for the constraints at hand.

But if the proof test was fair and the definitions of failure reasonable and rational then the multiple proof load test did prove the Winchester 21 was stouter and longer lived than the competitors. I just don't know what Winchester's definition of failure was for the test.

I had an engineering course and was taught one way of simulating 1000 times more cycles than you could afford to test for was to increase the load, force, weight etc... on the system you were testing. For instance driving a car designed to cruise at 70 for 100,000 miles at 120 mph for 40,000 miles.

I also suspect that since the failure of each gun was not described that the perhaps the definiton of failure was not reasonable or rational. At least I haven't read what the falures were.


Best,

Mike

Mike, would not have been stock failure. The wood's not attached during the proof process.

I don't believe we know how Winchester did the muli proof cartridge contest for the multiple brands of shotguns. I would like to see a write up of it.

Certainly Winchester wasn't proofing those guns.

Best,

Mike

I have looked up several definition of "not to belabor the point" , but cannot seem to find one applicable to this thread. Am I missing a good source of information ?