doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com "The Southern" Chamber Burst

Dewey Vicknair asked that it be clarified that he did not say that the braze joint failed but "that it was never a proper braze joint because of overheating. It started out as a failed joint."

Thanks MizzouGuy.
Gloria a Dios was able to sign in
http://www.16ga.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22189&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Mizzou BA 74' MD 78'

Jent Mitchell is a name I haven't heard in a while. Great guy, I haven't seen him in years. Hope he's doing well. Sorry to go off topic.

Very well could be Doc Drew. I think a pretty common appearance of blow ups is the look of grainy steel, or what DV may have referred to as the burned steel at the breech end of the barrel. The not so straight forward part of it in my opinion is that high carbon steel may be more likely damaged by over heating. And, the steel would likely be glowing at temps well above where any braze would even appear to have taken.

Of course, I think you've regularly shown that barrels are likely low carbon steels. I wonder if the grainy appearing areas might have come from the mill that way due to some production inconsistency. I wonder if a lab would find some analysis differences in the steel that appears grainy and 'burned' by the breech, and the brighter steel that yeilded towards the forcing cone once the process started. I think the 'good' steel tried to hold together, as the defect looks to have blown upwards, but apparently pieces struck to the right. The grainy stuff has the look like it let go in a relatively brittle way. Then again, pitting in a suseptible area may create a similar situation over time. It may be a less than ideal joint, but why was it good enough for somewhere around a hundred years. I think fun and interesting stuff.

Craig: this is the analysis of a 1898 00 Hunter Arms Armor Steel barrel.
Carbon .47%
Manganese .68%
Phosphorus .112%
Sulphur .075%
Nickel .02%
Chromium .02%
Molybdenum <.01%

Tensile Strength 101,000 psi

METL�s analysis: �The chemical composition the Armor Steel sample was determined by optical emission spectroscopy (OES) per Fed Test Standard 151B, Method 112.2. The measured results are comparable to 1211 rephosphorized and resulfurized low alloy steel (UNS G12110) as well as 1045 plain carbon steel (UNS G10450). The carbon content was higher than the common modern domestic alloys within this group however.�

Non-deep thinkin' version is non-standard 1045

[quote=Drew Hause

The burst shell IS A RELOAD with what is likely a Cheddite Clerinox 209 primer. The primer has been displaced out of the pocket, is bulging outward, and the (partial) base of the shell has a distinct extractor indentation.

Clerinox primer, burst shell, factory Cheddite/Herters right




[/quote]


Re the question about confirming that the burst shell in question is a reload vs factory Herters: I've fired hundreds of those exact same shells. And reloaded hundreds of them using Clerinox (Cheddite) primers. When I'm shooting sporting clays or 5 stand with my 16's, I'll carry a mixture of my 7/8 oz reloads and 1 oz factory loads. I can tell at a glance which is which simply by looking at the color of the primer. Note the copper colored rim around the Clerinox primer on the burst shell vs the gold rim around the primer on the fired factory shell.

Thank you Larry.
Another image of the shell. It is impossible to argue there was not increase pressure based on the flattened and fractured rim.



I've now been accused in a private communication of misrepresenting the history of the event, the burst shell (as if I changed primers), or the data I recorded motivated by some agenda to defend L.C. Smith guns.

We'll see what the metallurgist (which I have never claimed to be but some understanding of metallurgy is critical to understanding pattern welded barrels and barrel strength) has to say. I'm not interested in spending a lot more money on this project, but might ask for confirmatory images that can be obtained without dissecting the remains, which is why the missing chunk of barrel would be nice to have, and the fracture edge could show evidence of an inclusion, corrosion with porosity, or low cycle fatigue.

If someone wishes to argue with the opinion of the metallurgist, they are invited to establish their credibility by posting their real name and sending me their address by PM and I will contact the shooter for permission to ship the barrels to them for a second opinion.

Maybe use these

Amen to that-- I became acquainted with Jent- vis a vis the LCSCA some years ago maybe 2003-- Mae and I were in Williamsburg in July- and through e-mails at our hotel, Jent invited us to attend the NRA Convention- held in Winchester, VA that year-- We couldn't make that gracious invite fit into our travel plans-, but I will always remember that. And when I referred to him as a "Virginia Gentleman" (I am aware that is a favorite Bourbon, Gene Hill often mentioned it in his writings, along with Old Forester-- If I have the windage correct, I also believe he may have been behind a pump shotgun competition at the fabled "Southern" shootfest-- Gotta admire a man who has the good taste to own and shoot M12's-- RWTF

Preacher, are those X-Ray Vision Glasses what you used to form your brilliant opinion that lengthening chambers can result in GREATER BARREL WALL THICKNESS at the end of the re-cut chambers?

If so, either your X-Ray Glasses may be defective, or more likely, you don't have the "understanding" you'd like us to think you have. Paying a metallurgist to explain it to you probably isn't going to help either... whether you know the metallurgists' full name and address or not. We've seen your credibility, which apparently consists largely of Copy-and-Paste regurgitation. Good of you to admit here that your original assessment was wrong, wrong, wrong. But how do we process that original assessment, considering it was an opinion based upon photos, without having the barrels in hand? Yet later you harped on the ignorance and irresponsibility of jumping to conclusions based upon observations, lacking measurements or metallurgical analysis. But when Dewey did the same... well that was just wonderful. Did you have a change of heart... or was that an example of self-loathing and hypocrisy?



We all wonder who would accuse you of misrepresentation in a private communication??? Perhaps it it someone else who has seen you in action here??? That is funny!



I'm not so sure of how you could prove this statement either... assuming the "increase pressure" you cite is something radically greater than normal chamber pressures. I don't see how anyone could predict the result when a shell is suddenly unsupported by a large portion of rim cut and chamber wall at the moment of near peak pressure. How can you assure us that the rear portion of the brass remained perfectly flat against the breech face, and that there was no violent flexing of the largely unsupported shell head, which may have flattened the rim and permitted the primer to balloon outward? I also don't see how anyone could accurately reproduce the event to confirm this result.

You can cry, or whine, or complain about my opinion here, but I think we all know where you were coming from with your last paragraph in your post above, and your X-Ray Glasses advertisement.

Thank you for all the work you do on these barrels Drew, it is appreciated!