doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com "The Southern" chamber burst

Reference has been made to "The Southern" chamber burst and failure analysis. I couldn't add to the old thread, and some may have missed it, so here 'tis
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=546106

There is no new information to share; specifically the recipe of the reload.
The diagnosis of the defect was made immediately by Dewey Vicknair, but I at least learned a great deal from the metallurgical study. There were several emails exchanged with both the metallurgist and metallurgical engineer to help me understand the results. The relevant snippets are in the thread.

I would be happy to send anyone interested the report from METL - it is a 5MB PDF.
Send me an email at drewhausemd@yahoo.com and please include in the body of the email the statement "I acknowledge this document is the property of Drew Hause. Nothing in the contents will be reproduced or shared." I'll reply with the PDF as an attachment.
Sorry, but I don't want to find an internet article somewhere with the study I paid for, and which may be misrepresented.

And BTW: I should get the Winchester Nickel Steel barrel to METL next week for composition analysis and tensile testing.
The tube is ruptured and I might also have METL prepare a micrograph of the burst edge. An obstruction with high pressure failure (above ultimate tensile strength) should show elastic [this is an error - it should be "plastic'] deformation with terminal cleavage. Low cycle fatigue failure (repetitive stress above the yield strength) has a different appearance. Might be interesting if not educational.

Only asking Doc Drew, is "elastic" a typo as far as being able to be seen at some later point?

Thank you Craig. Yes, the deformation should be "plastic" ie. not reversible

Cleavage cavity with ductile dimples. No low-cycle fatigue striations.

Thanks much Doc Drew.

I truly appreciate the time you take focusing and sharing

Thanks for the update - so the undisturbed conclusion is that the burst was the result of an original factory manufacturing defect?

I guess it is remarkable it held up as long as it did if that is the case.

Dan: I should have linked the summary, without the extraneous verbiage, starting about 1/2 way down here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZnptAPvQIlWG5n5UU2FmKcFpYtVmOSc4b7K7G9IBs4g/edit

My opinion was that the barrel failed because of the critical juncture of 3 factors:
An over-pressure (re)load.
A defective braze of the top rib extension wedge to barrel.
Inclusions (possibly a large inclusion) in the barrel wall.

The barrel did not fail because of low cycle metal fatigue.

A 2 3/4" shell in a 2 9/16" chamber may have been a contributing factor.

Thanks for the clarification, Drew. Any idea what the approximate PSI on the reload was?

Unfortunately no Dan. The shooter apparently did not have his reloads tested.
We do know that independent testing of those Cheddite for Herters 16g �Select Field Dove and Quail� 1 oz. at 1165 fps showed pressure averaging 12,500 psi, with one at 13,400 psi. Raise the pressure with the short chamber and we are approaching proof load pressures. WOW.
CIP standard for both 65 and 70 mm 16g is SERVICE 780 BAR or 11,313 psi; PROOF 980 BAR or 14,214 psi.

So, how does a large company like Cheddite screw up that badly?

I still have a few flats of that load in stock and all the boxes wear the CIP certification.

My gut feeling is that they are mild loads. I've seen no signs of over pressure, and I've used perhaps a dozen flats of them.

For a steel head shell they extract easily and show no primer signs of high pressure whatever.

My BS indicator is wiggling on this 'independent' testing.

I have an honest interest in this subject Drew, I'm not discounting your second hand information but it does not add up in my opinion.

Gee Preacher, you sound paranoid about someone misrepresenting your precious PDF.

So why did you misrepresent yourself when you first told us that the contamination at the point of this barrel rupture was ferrous contamination, but then later it magically became manganese sulfide inclusions? Is that an unfair question?

Too bad that you didn't post the first Southern Barrel Burst thread... where you came to such such totally incorrect theories about the possible cause. I told you almost exactly what Dewey Vicknair told you, but you couldn't begin to be man enough to admit that I was right and you were so very wrong. Instead, you ridiculed me for making an observation without metallurgical analysis, that turned out to be correct. But when Dewey made the same observations, you had no similar criticism for him.

Is that caused by excess acid in your soul or something?

Oh, sorry, I keep forgetting that when I point out your many errors, that is evidence that I have the acid in my soul. Also self loathing, and am in dire need of counseling and your disingenuous and hypocritical Bible quotes. Did I miss anything? I loved that last one where you wailed this from your blasphemer's pulpit:



Sounds something like Charleton Heston overdosing on estrogen! I sure hope that wasn't copyrighted. But I did attribute it to the disingenuous and clearly unhinged Preacher who wrote it, so it should be OK.

Is it time for your pictures of the little girl from Guatemala, or pics of your dead dog yet? Dead dog pics always gin-up lots of sympathy from the people that you still have fooled.

Oh yes... one other little thing...



"Possibly a large inclusion"???? Holy crap... A blind man could have found it by the braille method! Dewey Vicknair drew an arrow pointing to it and said, (as I also said) "Clearly, the failure initiated here." But what else would we expect from a self-styled shotgun barrel expert like you, who actually argued for days that lengthening the chambers of our vintage doubles could actually increase the barrel wall thickness at the end of the lengthened chamber?

re: the Herter's load. I looked in my files and couldn't find the source of the high pressure report. I believe it was from the 16g Reloading Group, but some years ago.

Here is another post from 16g.com
http://www.16ga.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22189&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
"Tom Armburst test (of) Factory Herters 1oz #8s a couple years back Fps right around 1200, PSI right at 11500."

Obviously batches vary. The shooter gave me some unused factory loads which I did not send for pressure testing since the blow-up load was a reload. He did not send me any of his reloads.

re: the braze contamination below. It's complicated, and all I know is what the metallurgist and metallurgical engineer said. It should be obvious from the original thread that information and subsequent clarification came in over time.



150X SEM image of a contaminated region of the braze. EDX (Spectrum 1) showed the inclusions to be oxidized ferrous debris. The EDX are on the last page of the original thread



200X of the contamination (upper left) and oxidized steel (right) loaded with manganese sulfide inclusions



William: if you would please post your (real) name and email I would be happy to send you the report.

I can send you William's email if need be

I have it Steve, but thanks.

re: "burnt" steel. "Burnt" steel has specific metallurgic criteria.

Back in 1895 it was diagnosed visually. "Tempering Of Steel Tools" in the lower right
https://books.google.com/books?id=NkdCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA20&lpg

Google "The Overheating and Burning of Steel" by Ko Tsun. It is on the internet as a PDF but I couldn't link it.

http://www.engineeringenotes.com/metallu...etallurgy/25931
Overheating is due to the solution of MnS in austenite at high temperatures, and its subsequent precipitation during cooling as fine particles (0.5 � 1.0 �m) of MnS at austenite grain boundaries.
In �burning�, formation of a film of sulphur-rich liquid takes place at the austenite grain boundaries. The damage is total and permanent, as the steels than lose their ductility and disintegrate during deformation.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance... Baffle them with Bullshit! Right Preacher?

And pictures too! We must not forget the highly impressive pictures of steel that contains grain structure and inclusions... which you clearly don't understand.

There was no clarification that came in over time from you. There was a number of incorrect theories and immature behavior from you though. You still can't be a man and acknowledge that my conclusions about the probable cause of this barrel burst were almost exactly the same as the conclusions reached by Dewey Vicknair. It didn't take a rocket scientist or a trained metallurgist to see the obvious flaw and weak point in the barrel that ruptured. Anyone who had knowledge of brazing could use their brain to figure that a sound braze joint would help to support a section that was thin by design. Yet you felt the need to criticize me for advancing a probable root cause analysis without waiting for your precious lab findings... even though several other guys were giving their own incorrect theories. But being truthful wouldn't fit in with your narrative, and motivations, and sad need to discredit me, would it?

Manganese sulfide inclusions??? How very impressive ! Tell the folks here about the millions of Remington model 870 barrels that have manganese sulfide inclusions. Then tell them how Remington continued to use the same steel containing manganese sulfide, even after being sued over a small number of barrel bursts which most likely ocurred for causes totally unrelated to the steel they used. You would be a lot more credible if you didn't post such pure crap in a lame attempt to portray yourself as a shotgun barrel expert. Would it help if I posted some neat photomicrographs of bullshit?

By the way Preacher, why would you feel the need to ask for my full name and email address when you admit to SKB, the State Fruit of Colorado, that you already have it? Were you born being disingenuous, or was that an acquired trait?

Just giving you (another) chance to not be a coward William. Lots more images in the METL report which you might enjoy...and the metallurgist and metallurgical engineer would certainly appreciate your opinion regarding the "bullshit" they documented. Their contact infro is in the report - they were willing to use their names and even signed it. Credibility and professionalism.

So if a lost person, without hope, was reading your posts here on the Forum, do you think they would say "That Keith is sure filled with love, joy and peace. Wonder why that is? He says he attends a Catholic church. Maybe I'll ask him to tell me about Jesus"?

Little chance of koinonia for us William, but I really am praying that by the power of the Holy Spirit you can find peace, healing and restoration.

Now you know that's not what I asked you Preacher. I asked why you felt the need to ask for my full name and email address, when you then admitted to SKB, the Official State Fruit of Colorado, that you already had that information. Do you find Stevie's internet doxxing to be cowardly... or are you OK with that cowardly behavior? Pretty easy to see just who is being the disingenuous coward here.

And not at all surprising to see you once again hiding behind Jesus and the Bible again. What a fraud! Why don't you examine your own Christian behavior here... before casting stones?

And I've already seen what you've reported from the metallurgical analysis. The photomicrographs that you clearly do not understand add precious little to what was clearly evident to Dewey Vicknair and myself. I know you have this pathetic need to portray yourself as a shotgun barrel exprt, but you are never going to be another Dr. Oscar Gaddy. That would involve having intelligence and integrity.



To answer your question above... no, that doesn't bother me at all. But it sure seems to hit awful close to home for you.

Wow! I see your pal BrentD reading my post above. But BrentD says that he IGNORES my posts.

You Libtards are certainly a weird bunch. Do any of you have an ounce of integrity?

Thanks Drew!

600X SEM of the barrel wall at the location of what appears to be the initiation site. The 150X showing the cleavage is on the first page.



The cavity/void is presumed to have been the location of a large inclusion that likely contributed to the initiation of the failure at that point - slag?
Dimples are ductal overload indicators
The "possible voids" are likely the manganese sulfide inclusions seen on the 200X above, and which would diminish the steel strength.

If this is the presumed initiation point of the failure, do these characteristic seem similar to the outer barrel adjacent to what was the braze joint?

The reason I ask is could rust, that wasn't a part of the original construction, take on the SEM appearance of "slag" and possibly run along two dissimilar materials, such as the braze and barrel? The relative sizes of the potential manganese sulfide pools and the initiation point seem to indicate that "burned" steel may not have been the primary contributor. As in the past, if there was a partially, if not completely, successful braze joint, could there have been a manufacturing error in that area, that could've been hot enough to burn steel? Only thoughts.

craigd, as I recall, when the ferrous contamination was initially identified, it was consistent with the type of oxide that is produced during slow rust barrel bluing.

My gosh! The plot thickens... where do you suppose that might have come from???

In addition, it didn't seem that our great copy-and-paste shotgun barrel expert and serial blasphemer, or his metallurgical experts, had even considered slow rust barrel bluing oxide as a possible source of the ferrous oxide contamination found in the compromised braze joint.

You may also recall the Preacher giving some totally incorrect definition of "burned steel" after receiving the METL report.



We have groupies here who are actually grateful to be fed this crap.

I had to remind or otherwise inform him that temperatures sufficient to burn the carbon out of steel would be so high as to vaporize the zinc component of the copper-zinc brazing material. See my post #547631 in the thread referenced here:

https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=546106&page=9

But the verbal and pictorial efforts to discredit me go on and on... even dragging Jesus Christ himself into the fray. You could never find entertainment like this pathetic circus over on the Upland Journal forum! Dave shouldn't invite donations... he should charge admission to the Libtard Freak Show!

Craig: At the time of the burst, the barrel segment flew into some brush next to the shooter and could not be recovered. It would have been helpful to examine the burst edges (and probably would have saved having to section the barrel, which was a challenge), and maybe the presumed inclusion at the initiation point would still be present.

Slag is easily identified by EDX.

This is from the previously published Remington burst; a barrel section at 50X. The composition of the inclusions by EDX was predominantly silica, metal oxides, phosphorus, and sulfur ie. slag, and not manganese sulfide.



This is a section of a L.C. Twist barrel that broke when on the extensometer way back in the pattern welded barrel strength study. It broke at this inclusion which by EDX was slag




The barrel survived 110 years of use with the defective braze and "burned" steel. Interesting to speculate if it would have remained intact with "better" barrel steel (it is non-standard AISI 1018 low alloy low carbon steel with slightly high phosphorus & sulphur, and a low concentration of nickel) and/or without the presumed inclusion and/or the high pressure reload?

So you have all these photos and speculation about what you are looking at but where are your standards for comparisons for said conclusion? Right now you are sounding like Adam Schiff!

Do you mean sections of turn-of-the-century barrels that did not burst? A valid criticism.
METL has been pretty excited about this and the previous pattern welded barrel study because there are very few images thereof in the metallurgical literature, and almost none of pattern welded barrels.

BTW and relevant. There are images of hull steel plate recovered from the Titanic. The �acid-lined open hearth� hull plate steel, from the works of David Colville & Co., was non-standard AISI 1020, with a slightly higher phosphorus, much higher sulfur, and lower manganese concentration. The tensile strength was 65,000 psi, and the low Mn:S ratio (6.8:1) made the metal more brittle in the cold temperature.
The photomicrographs showed �dirty steel� with both silicate, sulfide, and manganese sulfide inclusions.

This is from "There's Danger in Damascus" by Major J.W. Houlden, June 1950 "C-I-L Oval", a publication of Canadian Industries Limited and reprinted in the 1960 "Guns Digest". Obviously pre-SEM & EDX and of much lower resolution



Burrard published a few photomicrographs also


Adam Schiff? Really? Why is it so hard to discuss things on this Forum without personal insults RARiddell?

The image reminds me of an image or two of damascus barrel sections that you showed. What I see is that through the drawing process, large and irregular inclusions might be mitigated by elongating their shape and offering the opportunity for favorable alignment of what might be perceived as a grain.

Here ya' go Craig. 20X 3% Nitrol etched specimen of 2 Iron crolle.
The top is the edge of the barrel segment blown out at the time of the burst and the fracture is clearly ACROSS the crolle pattern; steel is grey-black, iron silver-white. The crack appears to be in the steel alternee, or possibly at an iron-steel interface.
The straight lines in the lower right are interesting. The metallurgist suggested that they are evidence of shear deformation at the time of the high pressure burst.



These straight lines of silica within the iron strip may have been acquired as part of the rod rolling and twisting process. It looks like one in the middle left originated in a globular silica inclusion

I see that 'crack' as a success in this way. It is with the grain that was formed by the steel drawing process. By grain, I mean that the dark pools, inclusions, have been decreased in size, surrounded by sound steel that is directional.

While there may be switch backs with twisting and hammer strikes, the continuous direction of the rods are formed on a mandrel roughly opposing the direction of the barrel tube. In other words, they're arranged to form hoop strength. I'm not thinking a barrel can't fail, only that there may have been an engineering intention to the construction back at a time when the mills couldn't assure consistency.

Just conversational opinion Doc Drew, to me your various images are much more interesting than often held assumptions that damascus would look like a mess of welds. Could the straight lines be abrasive scratch patterns, either not fully removed during the sample prep or as a result of the sample prep. Slight warpage and material hardness variations could account for seeing a scratch pattern in one area and not the adjacent?

The metallurgical engineer at METL showed me some samples ready for microscopy and SEM after the machining, prep, and mounting but I certainly can't comment on the process. The staining is from the 3% Nitrol etching (other etchants are also used). I would assume a scratch would not etch differently from the surrounding matrix?

Hi Doc Drew, I'd suspect that if a scratch has a different grit coarseness and reflects light differently, it might very well appear to etch differently than the surrounding matrix.

Only guessing, but I don't think the various etching protocols are being used as a 'staining' process. The etching may be used for it's ability to remove some materials at a higher rate than others so that the resulting contrast can be visualized. The resulting image may(?) be all or predominantly steel that some other component or process cause it assume a shape that can be viewed? I'm guessing that by using different etching protocols of known capabilities, they can create an informed opinion of what reacted to the etch, but may not actually be present in the image.

Drew,

I looked on the damascus site and didn't see the article "There's Danger in Damascus" by Major J.W. Houlden, June 1950. Do you have this posted somewhere?

Thanks
Ken

Ken. I'm not sure where I found this, and it is an almost unreadable scanned copy, but here you go

Thanks Drew. I couldn't read the first page, but could read the last 2 pages. I'm glad Sherman Bell did some testing and published the results in the Doublegun Journal.

Ken

Adam Schiff has more integrity RARiddell. I'll bet Adam Schiff knows a lot more about steel too.

But what you said is very true, which means you may soon be a target of the Preacher's wrath and blasphemies.

I don't have time to elaborate tonight, but what I said earlier is being proven over and over:



All these impressive pictures of photomicrographs of steel that the Preacher keeps posting while running away from his silly and false statements like;



Well, they only serve to show us how little the Preacher knows about this subject. Of course, he also thought that lengthening the chambers in vintage shotgun barrels could actually increase the barrel wall thickness at the end of the longer chamber. An eighth grade geometry student with a straight edge and no precision measuring tools could see the sheer foolishness of that goofy statement. But the Preacher went on and on in a similar frantic manner such as this for days, attempting to ridicule anyone who attempted to show his error.

Ask him to show you a real photomicrograph or Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) image of steel WITHOUT any inclusions.

All steel has inclusions. So anyone could show us pics with these important and serious looking structures embedded within the matrix. I really like it when identical appearing structure keeps showing up at different times with totally different descriptions.

All steel is an alloy... which is another thing that the Preacher has shown us he didn't comprehend. And we just keep going back and forth on manganese sulfide inclusions too. Are they good or bad when found in gun barrel steel? The Preacher has been all over the map on them. Baffle them with Bullshit!

The photomicrograph that is purportedly from the hull of the Titanic raises many questions. How was it acquired? Did it come from the section that was fatally damaged by the iceberg? How can we know that for certain when the Titanic wreckage is over 12,500 feet deep? Has this been independently verified?

Most important of all is this... The Titanic weighed 46,328 tons. If we assume that the steel mill that supplied that steel had converters capable of even 100 tons per heat, that would be over 400 heats of steel. The furnaces were likely much smaller, so the number of heats would probably be much greater.

Does anyone with even half a brain think that one SEM photo or metallurgical analysis, or even a few, can accurately represent a true analysis of what was in over 400 heats of steel?

For those interested, here's a link to one of the article regarding the Titanic steel study...even with pictures of inclusions and stuff
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/9801/felkins-9801.html

William knows perfectly well that impurities & inclusions in steel matter, and to argue otherwise is just silly.

The proper amount of non-ferrous elements can be a good thing however. Silicon and phosphorus can increase strength. Sulfur increases machinability (416-R stainless is resulfurized). Manganese can prevent iron sulfide and inclusions; in the correct amount and ratio.

So happy Rev-Doc changed old ways of copying from the web with out attribution to the poster. Lately I see he tries to give credit where due. Thank you.

Still didn�t answer my question? What is your sample size, controls? Are you saying the Titanic is the standards for all steels? There are some bold statements but not seeing how you come to your conclusions. Adam Schiff comment wasn�t a personal attack, just a similarity to what�s going on here. It�s cool that you are interested in this and awesome that you are willing to share, I just don�t see how what you are showing is explaining what you are saying. Look I�m a man of science, you can get upset that I�m questioning you, but if you�re bringing up science in a double gun forum, we�ll you gots some splanin� to do, Lucy!
Sincerely
Rick Riddell of that ilk!

It is my opinion that Adam Schiff is a lying weasel, but we can move on.

As I said on p.3, your criticism is valid. I have no controls. David Scott's "Metallography and Microstructure of Ancient and Historic Metals" is available as a PDF, as are several "Atlas of Microstructures". I rely on the assessment of the metallurgist and metallurgical engineer at METL.

And BTW to my knowledge there has only been one other (unpublished) failure analysis (which I have read) of a pattern welded barrel, which also included a Parker Vulcan Steel barrels.
A summary is 1/2 way down here, as follows:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZnptAPvQIlWG5n5UU2FmKcFpYtVmOSc4b7K7G9IBs4g/edit

The pseudonymous Zircon posted �Contribute Junk To Advance Barrel Strength Knowledge� on two public internet forums in 2005 requesting vintage barrels for composition and strength testing. By 2006 he had accumulated almost 40 samples, both Fluid Steel and Pattern Welded. Part of the collection included the Damascus barrels from the Parker GH and the Vulcan Steel barrels from the Parker VH that had been the subjects of destructive testing by Sherman Bell, with the technical support of Tom Armbrust, published in The Double Gun Journal Vol. 10, Issue 4, Winter, 1999, �Finding Out For Myself� Part II and Vol. 16, Issue 2, Summer 2005, �Finding Out For Myself� Part IX.

Both guns were subjected to sequentially higher pressure loads at about 2,000 pounds/square inch (psi) increments. The GH testing started at 11,900 psi and one chamber ruptured at 29,620 psi. The VH started with a Proof Load of 18,560 psi. Both chambers bulged at 29,620 psi and ruptured at 31,620 psi.

I personally communicated with Zircon in February 2008 and he shared this information regarding his Metallographic Examination of the GH Damascus barrel:
�The forge-welded joints were 100% bonded. There was no indication of any kind of discontinuity, seam, inclusion of welding flux, or any other sort of defect along the welds; both between the�rods, as well as in the spiral weld where the skelp (ribband) was joined together around the mandrel.�

My last communication with Zircon (I believe a metallurgical engineer) was in 2015. He stated that it was still his intention to publish both his failure analysis and his metallurgical study of all the barrel samples in his procession. THAT would be a nice control study, but I agree likely not of statistical significance.

It's a tough one RA. I don't think we even get to see the images let alone arm chair speculate if articles had to pass rigid scientific peer review.

There's occasional passing mention, but little more of suspected mountains of firearm blowup data within the industry. Beyond that, which I doubt will ever be released, it's going to be tough to get resources committed. Today, we treat a common sniffle much differently, but if a classic gun comes apart we reach specific conclusions based on sixty year old literature?

Specifically regarding failure analysis. There is an enormous industrial field of research and investigation in failure analysis. And professional journals devoted thereto: "Engineering Failure Analysis" and ASM International's "Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention" are 2.
The big money isn't in vintage damascus barrel failures or even a blown-up K80 (the results of the analysis will never be made public); it is in pipeline blow-outs and airplanes falling from the sky. The metallurgical engineer at METL told me they can now ID the welder, at the specific yard in Houston, who welded the pipe that blew out.

And there are billions of $s tied in to things like this, which BTW was fan blade fatigue failure
http://www.wsj.com/articles/southwest-incident-linked-to-cracked-engine-blade-1473716012



What I've been doing is extremely small time, entertaining and interesting to the folks at METL, and I believe has been of some value.

and BTW: I'm perfectly capable of saying stupid stuff, but William is playing word games regarding "alloy"; which has both general and specific meaning.
The metallurgical definition of �alloy steel�:
Alloying elements, either residual or added, are present in percentages greater than the following:
Mn 1.0%,
Si 0.70%,
Mo 0.10%,
Cr 0.10%,
V 0.05%,
Ti 0.05%,
Ni 0.4%.

This is Dave Suponski's Parker Titanic steel which would be non-standard AISI 1030 medium carbon low alloy steel
Carbon .32%
Manganese .70%
Phosphorus .033%
Sulphur .077%
Nickel .078%
Chromium .031%
Molybdenum <.01%

�High alloy� steels have a sum total of > 5% (other sources 8%) of the alloying elements.

4140 (Cr 0.8-1.1% and Mo .15-.25%) is a �low alloy� steel but usually listed by manufacturers as �alloy steel�, as is 4340 and the other 4XXX and 5XXX steels.

Stainless steel is high-alloy steel, usually with 12% or greater chromium depending on the other alloys

Thanks for proving my point Preacher. All steels are alloys.

Miller explained it to you and I explained it to you.

Your own post above confirms what Miller and I said. Unfortunately, you are still too ignorant to grasp it, and you are too consumed with hate and acid in your soul. It appears as if just about every post you are frantically making has the ulterior motive of attempting to discredit me.

Now why don't you show us just one steel sample that is not an alloy of iron and carbon and other elements? This is a challenge to allow you to show us that you are right and I am wrong. This should be easy for a copy-and-paste "expert" like you.

I will be waiting.... And waiting... And waiting....

This is silly William. There is no steel without carbon, phosphorus, sulfur or manganese (at least since Robert Mushet).
Do you see carbon on that list of elements that are used to define "alloy steel" (and there are of course others)?
The presence of carbon makes steel an "alloy"
The presence of OTHER elements, and the concentration thereof, defines "alloy steel"
And low alloy 4140 is routinely referred to as "alloy steel"
https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6769

The point was and is, as you well know, that the low concentrations of Ni and Cr in Parker Titanic steel would not make it chrome nickel alloy steel.
This isn't hard William. Please stop twisting and misrepresenting my clear-to-understand posts.

Drew,
Everything I ever welded in any nuclear facility,(going back more than 40 years), was stamped and recorded.

The leg that broke off the rig in the north sea at great loss of life, was traced back to the man under the hood whose welds failed.

Preacher, it is you who is twisting my words and misrepresenting facts. Miller explained the fact that carbon is alloyed into steel in his last post in your Winchester Shotgun Barrel thread.

It isn't our fault that you are too dumb to comprehend that, and too obsessed with discrediting me to ever admit it. The fact that carbon was not on your precious list of alloying elements simply makes your list incomplete.

Parker Titanic steel would most certainly be an alloy. But I want you now to show us exactly where I ever said that Parker Titanic steel would be chrome nickel alloy steel. I clearly said in my last post that the analysis of Dave Suponski's Parker Titanic steel showed that you were wrong in saying such steels are not alloy steels. They most certainly are.

Stop twisting. Stop tap dancing. Stick with what you know best... blasphemy.

Now Preacher, I would like you to show us exactly where I ever once made a statement that "impurities & inclusions in steel DO NOT matter"

What are you trying to pull here... aside from resorting to lies in yet another attempt to discredit me?

I know you don't really understand most of the copy-and-paste information you post about steel. I was very clear what I said and meant about the FACT that all steel has impurities and inclusions. The amount and the composition of those inclusions can and does matter. I brought up the almost certainty that it was an inclusion that ruptured the barrel that was the subject of this thread. I brought up that point before Dewey Vicknair... and I brought up that point while you were still tossing out ridiculous and highly unlikely scenarios.

So now, in addition to running away from the challenge to show us even one type of steel that is not an alloy...

...I am also challenging you to show us where I ever once said that inclusions and impurities in steel do not matter.

We shall see who is lying, and we shall see who is twisting words Preacher.

Well actually, I think we shall see you try to change the subject and discredit me in some other way... as you run away from your ignorance and your lies about me.

By the way, I did read your link on the testing of steel from the hull of the Titanic. Nowhere did the author say that the samples tested came from the area that broke and tore when it hit the iceberg. However, the author did say that the steel used was the best that was available at the time Titanic was built, and that the ocean was full of ships with the same type of steel, and they never sunk. The difference was that they did not hit an iceberg. Considering the time, it's pretty likely that steel that was very close in analysis ended up in shotgun barrels... and did not break or shatter when fired in below freezing temperatures.

One or a few tests done on over 40,000 tons of steel cannot be relied upon to tell us anything for certain... except about those particular samples. And that is another point that you still cannot grasp.

Test away... it is your money. Just don't act like you really understand what that testing is actually telling you. It is obvious that you don't.