Interesting... very interesting that you should make your point by comparing apples to oranges... i.e., steel produced in 1925 versus steel produced in the 1890's with different furnaces and materials.... a higher alloy steel versus plain decarbonized steel. I'm not surprised to see you trying to get away with that sort of cherry-picking of data. So show us side by side analysis of the three stellar reputation gun barrel steels, Krupp, Kilby, and Whitworth, that were made in 1925, and compare that with the same 1925 LLH Crescent barrel.
And for a truly valid comparison... make certain that all of these samples are tested by the same Met Lab using the same equipment.
So then, by your inference, are you telling your enthralled audience that Crescent Steel is/was better than Kilby, Krupp, or Whitworth steel? If so, then why did you make such a fuss yesterday over the nickel steel that was documented by Researcher in the $750 1894 Remington double? Are you saying that a discerning and wealthy gun buyer who had big money to spend on a high grade Remington should have specified LLH Crescent barrels instead? Or are you saying that over the life of the gun, it really wouldn't have made much difference for killing ducks?
And if Crescent Steel is/was better than those highly revered other quality gun barrel steels, was it better in every way? Or are you trying to tell us that tensile strength is the one true measure of steel quality?
I also find it interesting and educational that you describe a sample of AISI 1045 L.C. Smith Armor steel as having a tensile strength of 101,000 psi. Then two short paragraphs later, you cite a Krupp Fluss Stahl tube from the 1890's that was "similar to AISI 1045 which has an industrial standard tensile strength of 82,000-85,000 psi."
It appears that you are saying or admitting that samples of AISI 1045 are all over the map when it comes to analysis... which is what I have been saying. That kinda shoots big holes in your silly notion that one or two samples of gun barrel steel tested by your local Metallurgy facility will tell us the story of all the barrels of that particular gun, produced over many years. Further evidence of this can be found in your own words from your post# 548227 concerning two Hunter Arms Armor Steel barrels--
It could be relevant that 2 Hunter Arms Armor Steel barrels were shown to be Non-standard AISI 1045 Rephosphorized Resulfurized Carbon Steel and Non-standard AISI 1018 with high phosphorus and sulphur.
Do you even read the stuff that you copy-and paste here preacher? The more that you copy-and-paste, the more we learn that you don't actually understand the things you regurgitate. But I think you put that on full display last year when you went on for a couple days wildly asserting that lengthening the chambers of vintage double shotgun barrels could actually result in greater wall thickness at the end of the re-cut chamber.
