Will try again and start the summary thread here as the format on the LCSCA Forum makes it hard to follow long threads with multiple replies.

Many thanks to all those involved, and especially the gun owner, with whom I have spoken and who graciously allowed this evaluation. I freely admit that my initial assessment was wrong; there is no obstructional ring bulge, and the gun was not the victim of inexpert chamber/cone lengthening.

I claim no metallurgical or engineering expertise. My information comes from conversations with the metallurgical engineers at METL and several gunsmiths in preparation for “A Blow-Up Post-Mortem”, published in The Double Gun & Single Shot Journal, Vol. 27, Issue 3, p. 17, 2016
and summarized here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZnptAPvQIlWG5n5UU2FmKcFpYtVmOSc4b7K7G9IBs4g/edit

It doesn't take a lot of brains or talent to record wall thickness numbers; just the equipment and practice therewith to establish repeatable numbers and the willingness to spend the time to do it right; and it does take time.

The gun is a 1908 Regular frame 16g No. 00 L.C. Smith with fluid steel barrels; though without the usual “Armor Steel” barrel mark; it does have a faint 'C' we believe for Crucible Steel but no SB&Co.

The shells were Cheddite for Herters “Select Field Dove and Quail” 1 oz. at 1165 fps, or the old 2 1/2 Dr. Eq. I have no pressure data for that load, but similar loads run about 9,000 psi. The hang tag that came on that gun listed 2 1/2 dram 1 oz. shot, and Nitro powder loads then had similar pressures as today.

The gun has been used regularly since purchased 2 years ago. The owner states that the chambers have been measured at 2 3/4”.

The burst occurred at the 2019 “Southern” on the Sporting Clays course. The shooter did not perceive anything out-of-the-ordinary before or with the burst; other than the loud report. No increased recoil. A piece/pieces of barrel struck the tree to the right but was not recovered. The shot through the barrel immediately before the burst was normal; no FTF or soft report.

Images courtesy of Cheryl Stubbendieck





Note that the rib has been lifted

Thoughts from Dewey Vicknair



Hunter Arms used a brazed hook and rib extension; courtesy of David Elliott



and the wall adjacent to the wedge hook piece and top rib extension piece are flat

12 gauge



The subject 16g gun

It has been proposed that the failure initiation point was the dark divot shown here, with failure of the braze joint + the now unsupported thin wall +/- a flaw (?inclusion) at that point; with the gasses being vented superiorly



After wiping with Shooter’s Choice, without use of an abrasive



Courtesy of Dewey Vicknair



The shell used in the burst chamber. Clearly the Cheddite hulls have a separate plastic base wad, part of which is missing. The brass base has fractured and a section of the hull is also missing.



Examination of the 7 empty shells used immediately prior to the burst (saved for reloading) shows the base wads are in place and complete, and each has a factory primer. 8 unfired factory shells have the same primer.

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



Fractured and flattened rim



Extractor imprint



Major Sir Gerald Burrard The Modern Shotgun, Volume 3, The Gun and The Cartridge, “The Diagnosis of a Burst”, 1948
identified an indentation of the extractor on the case head, enlargement of the case head, flattening or fracture of the rim, lifting of the primer from the pocket, flattening of the primer against the breech face, and deep striker indentation, especially in comparison to shells of the same batch, as evidence of excessive pressure.

Ballistic testing of the unfired factory shells, while of interest, is not relevant.
FYI:
Downrange Mfr. only tests 12g shells
Precision Reloading will not test factory shells; information regarding shipping (NOT by USPS) is here
https://www.precisionreloading.com/docs/uploads/BALLISTIC%20TESTING%20INFORMATION-2.pdf
Tom Armbrust will test 16g loads
1108 W. May Ave, McHenry, IL 60051
Note new (cell) phone: 815-451-6649


Measurements

The left chamber is 2 9/16” measuring .750” at the breech to .738” at the end of the chamber. Superficial tools marks are present in both chambers.
The left forcing cone is 9/16”; right could not be measured but visually appears the same.
Both bores at 9” are .650”.

A 1907 Hunter Arms engineering drawing specifies 16g chambers as .745” tapering to .732” with a 1/2" forcing cone to a bore of .650”.

Impression: Slight disparity in numbers likely insignificant. No evidence of modification to chamber or bore.

Wall thickness

End of the chamber L .096”; R could be measured and .105”
Forcing cone L .112”; R .126”
9” from breech L .046”; R .042”
9” from muzzle L and R .032”
MWT was several inches in mid barrel and both .028”

Impression: adequate wall thickness

SUMMARY

1. There is no evidence of chamber, cone, or bore modification; and wall thicknesses are compatible with other measured 16g Regular frame Smith guns.
2. The burst shell was a reload, and shows evidence of over-pressure.
3. There is visual evidence of failure of the braze joint, and a suggestion of a defect in the barrel wall which served as the failure initiation point.

Unanswered questions:

Would the chamber have burst without the over-pressure shell?

Is the top rib extension wedge brazed to the thin medial barrel wall a design defect, or was this a manufacturing error?

Did the use of 2 3/4" shells in a 2 9/16" chamber add to the over-pressure? The once fired Cheddite hulls are a full 2 3/4". Sherman Bell's study of 2 3/4" shells in 2 1/2" chambers showed a rise in pressure from 228 psi to 1216 psi compared to 2 3/4" chamber with a 1" forcing cone.


I plan on asking an engineer at METL for an opinion regarding the failure of the braze joint.

Thank you for all your efforts!

Interesting the way the shell splits when fired without a chamber altogether. Very similar to the above. Almost like the barrel wall provided no resistance whatsoever:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SSdLQcGEio

Was it known that the shell was a reload the entire time? Looking at the obvious signs of over pressure, the way the primer flowed into the area around the firing pin is classical, the way the hull rim expanded into the extractor area is the same.

Are we certain this is a reloaded shell? One problem I have with low pressure reloads is that they often don’t take up enough room in the hull. So if extra anything gets in the hull, that extra space just gets filled in and the crimped shell can look normal. People think all over pressure loads are double charges of powder but they do not have to be that much extra powder. Makes you think of how lucky we are in our reloads. I’ve loaded several hundred thousand shells with no graphic failures like this one. Worst for me is the odd cocked wad or squibs loads

I had a PW machine which would create an overload problem in 20 gauge. Talking with one of the fellows at Alliant I was told using Green Dot, my all purpose powder at the time, four to five grains extra powder would cause pressures to climb quickly in dangerous ranges. I sent that machine back twice to PW who went over it. It still had the same problem so over the side of a bridge it went.

i agree, Ky Jon, the blown hull exhibits excessive pressure and I think we will find it was the catalyst for the blowout though the barrel vas weakened by poor joining and evidently a crack that went undiscovered for a long time.

Very interesting. Thanks for your work Drew! We can use all the knowledge we can get

Very interesting; thank you for sharing that. Gil

Maybe third thread will be the charm, Dr. Drew. Thank you for sharing your investigation with the rest of us...Geo

In as much as the word "detonation" has been disqualified, I'll gladly settle for "burst".

That is serious over pressure, not just a little bit. Looking at the head of that shell I'm in no way surprised that the chamber let go.

SRH

Wish I had more details of this burst, courtesy of David Trevallion. It was presumed to be an over-pressure reload which blew out the lateral wall of the chamber.
Possibly a properly brazed medial wall-wedge joint is stronger than the lateral wall?

I would expect so - if the thickness of the steel was the same on both sides. But that's the problem. How much steel can the braze joint replace? Not enough in this case.

I really don't want to claim allegiance to any particular hypothesis for the gun in question, but aren't all blown guns the product of "over pressure"? At least, relative to what that particular gun can hold, that is, in fact, absolutely the case. Whether the gun was over charged or the barrel understrength, the result is the same. In this case, there appears to be a plenty of reason to question fault with the gun.

the anomalies with the case simply shows what happens when an a case becomes unsupported (because half the chamber disappeared). So I don't think it is really possible to convict the reload of overcharging.

Just 2 cents from the sidelines.

Now that we realize that the shell shows signs of extreme pressure, and was a reload, all bets are off and we are back at square one. By the way, Drew's assessment of the LCSCA forum matches the assessment I mentioned to the moderator probably ten years ago which was brushed aside. I assume Reverend Drew was also brushed aside. I don't go there, and I don't pay dues, even though I shoot the guns and like the members.

Has anyone used the word inclusion? I just blued a D Parker that had what I thought was a pit near the muzzle but it turned out to be a flap of metal cause (dirt in the metal) MY industrial experience show a tiny drop of "dirt" can cause a lamination several feet long.
bill

Manganese Sulfide Stringers Bill

Different from slag, which may have been the Parker issue.

This was posted a long time ago by Robert Rambler. 1895 Ithaca Crass with damascus barrels that were being cleaned up for reblueing. Initially just a small pit on the surface of the barrels, quickly grew into what you see here as polishing continued. Inside the barrels are bright and smooth, giving no indication of a flaw.

Just on speculation, the primer of the blown shell does not appear any more flattened than the sample fired shell next to it. I think the good fired shell is showing a bit of primer flow around the firing pin, maybe a bit warm anyway for the clearance around that firing pin fit up. The lifted primer and the apparent outward bulge on the primer near the striker indentation may have happened as the headspace started to increase as the chamber failed. I do not believe the primer striker indentation area had more strength than the failed barrel, maybe the rim and primer stopped distorting as the pressure dropped when the chamber failed. I would think the plastic hull sealed the entire chamber, from breech to opened crimp, but the plastic failed as the barrel failed in the same direction as the barrel failed, no plastic flowed back into the defect between the rib and barrel. It tore outward, and the plastic hull does not appear to have burned through and thus reaching the steel to burn it.

I still think the dark color is from long term corrosion for two reasons. There is bright metal where the barrel failed away from the rib even though it was exposed to the same conditions as the suspected failure area. And second, it does not appear that the bore cleaner removed the dark coloring as if it were only powder fouling. It's always appeared to me that braze is still bonded to the rib and corrosion ran along the barrel. Only guessing Doc Drew because it is interesting, take care.

Agreed. Yours is more detailed description of what I was thinking and said.

Brent, I take "over pressure" as referring to more pressure than the gun was built to handle. Gun passes proof, which is extreme over pressure . . . but fails somewhere in the future. Maybe the result of metal fatigue or a flaw that the proof load didn't reveal. For example, I know of one case in which a modern Spanish gun (reputable maker) failed, fired with a factory load. Several inches forward of the chamber. No indication of an obstruction. Examination revealed that barrel wall thickness where it blew was something like .014. Yet it had been shot for a long time before the thin spot blew. Unless we assume an overpressure factory load, that failure was the result of a flaw in the barrel boring process, which left the thin spot in question. Hard to tell why it blew then rather than sooner, or how it managed to survive a proof load.

The answer to the cause is really quite simple except to those that refuse to see it....



1908...time worn piece of crap..

Beg to differ, Suh. If you follow the regime I do with my pre-1913 Graded ejector Smith guns:-- 1100 fps. loads max- regular cleaning, and no reloads, your "piece of crap" analogy fades away-- Several of my Smiths (all 12 bore) have well over 1000 rds. through them since they came into my possession. I will grant you, the Smith design is complicated, especially their HOT trigger--and re-assemblying one properly is NOT a job for a amatuer-- But they have a balance and feel that surpasses other American double guns- IMO. RWTF

Each time you pull the trigger on a 100 year old plus gun you never know when it will blow....

The discussion as to the primer (viz. the primer bulge happening as the headspace failed) seems fair. But, it does not account for the extractor imprint. Logic tells me that, if there was to be an imprint from the extractor (as there is), then it would have to have happened before headspace failed and before the chamber wall blew out. First, the extractor is not in the region that failed. Second, on the chamber wall blowing out the pressure (necessary to force the shell head into the extractor to cause the imprint) would drop off rapidly.

I think this was a hot reload that met up with a chamber with a very weak spot.

All factory shells except one reload, and the reload blows the gun to pieces? Too much of a weird coincidence to eliminate the reload as part of the cause. Foxy's comment about not using reloads in old guns is a bit of an overreaction. Many of these guns fired nothing less than 1 1/4 ounce loads from the twenties through the seventies without a problem.

Reloads are all I normally shoot through my 100+-year-old guns. I would not shoot just anyone's reloads, if other than those I have loaded myself I have to know the loader "Extremely" well.



I would modify this statement to read;
Each time you pull the trigger on any gun you never know when it will blow..
I do not have exact figures but over the years there have been more "Young" guns blown than Old ones.

The only way to be absolutely certain a gun never blows up in one's hands is to "Not Pull any Triggers" A step I have never been willing to take. I am far more concerned about my personal safety every time I get in an automobile than when I pick up one of my Twist or Damascus barreled Lefevers or my pre-1900 J P Clabrough Damascus.
I do shoot moderate & sensible loads through them, neither max pressure nor those "Ridiculous" Extremely Low-pressure ones. I stay in the 7K-8K range with powders made for that range, the slow progressive powders were not designed for good burniong at low pressures.

Drew
Mn stringers were not uncommon in the light gauge stainless that we used, .026 to .045. The more you roll the metal the longer and wider they get. The mills could elimenate the Mn but less than .7 percent Mn caused stress cracking. I have had stress cracking cause a forearm iron on a super to break but seldom see anyone mention this problem.

bill

It seems odd to have 1 reload in a box/pouch of a factory ammo. Is it 100% certain it's a reload? Normally I shoot either factory or reload- but never mix. Maybe that's just me though

Nearby skeet range shoots 2-3 million rounds a year for 45 years. Two guns blow up during this time. Both reloads.

Yes Bill, I used the word inclusion very early in this "Mountain-Out-Of-A-Molehill" discussion.

Based upon the first pictures we saw, I was of the opinion that the burst initiated at the point of the dark spot, where the chamber wall was exceedingly thin, and it also appeared that the braze joint was compromised or defective. This was well before we saw any photo of the rear end of the blown shell. I felt that the dark spot was possibly an inclusion such as rolled-in scale, which unfortunately just happened to be in a spot that was machined very thin during the barrel jointing process. The same sort of inclusion hidden between the ribs and located much further down the barrels might have never been noticed.

I was ridiculed by the Preacher for making an observation based upon what was plain to see. And that observation did not include highly unlikely causes such as probable ring bulges, bore obstructions, or a shell that did not fully open at the mouth. Later, when Dewey Vicknair came to very similar conclusions with photos having notations in red, that was perfectly acceptable, and Dewey was not similarly castigated, discredited, or taken to task for making a logical and rational observation based upon the evidence at hand.

But don't forget... I'm supposed to be the one with self-loathing, hatred, and acid in my soul... according to the Preacher.

I'm still not convinced that this was the result of some extreme overload. But we know that there was enough pressure to finally exploit this thin weak area that appeared to have an inclusion and compromised braze joint. It appears that there was a weak spot present ever since the gun was manufactured, and it quite possibly got worse over time. It takes a LOT of pressure to extrude a primer and get extractor imprints like that. But all bets are off with a shell case that is abruptly unsupported by a chamber that lets loose in those milliseconds when pressures are peaking.

Specifically, I'm thinking about a lot of burst steel tubing I saw a number of years ago when I spent a couple days working on a PLC program controlling high pressure pumps on a Hydrotester. Part of the problem was that pressures were unpredictably going way too high and bursting tubes that were not otherwise defective. I got to witness a lot of impressive bursts, and was close enough at times to get drenched when they ruptured. I was very surprised by they way the tubes reacted, even though pretty securely clamped into the machine. There was simply no predicting the result, and the ruptured tubes often twisted and cork-screwed weirdly. Of course Hydrotesting is pressure testing done using water instead of highly compressed air or a gas because a burst involving gas pressure would be much more violent and dangerous.

Thin plastic shell bodies and thin brass or brass plated steel shell heads can easily contain normal pressures when they are adequately supported. It's what they are designed to do. Abruptly take away roughly half of that chamber support in a burst like this, and I don't know how anyone can predict exactly how those thin materials would behave. Pretty near impossible to duplicate those same conditions to verify results as well.

Wear your shooting glasses. Keep your life insurance premiums paid. Avoid distractions while reloading. And enjoy shooting vintage doubles knowing you have a better chance getting injured or killed on the drive to the skeet range. Because no amount of anal hysteria or careful barrel wall thickness measuring was ever going to predict or prevent this burst... especially when done by someone who actually thought that lengthening chambers would result in GREATER WALL THICKNESS at the ends of the re-cut chambers. And maybe it would be good for the Preacher to take those measuring tools and carefully check himself for thin skin... not that it would help.

I'm meeting with a metallurgical engineer at METL Tuesday morning and have 3 specific questions related to Dewey Vicknair's comments



1. Do you agree the dark divot in the middle represents the failure initiation point, and can we now determine if there was a flaw there?
2. Do you agree the braze joint failed?
3. Do you agree the breech end barrel wall metal appears to have been over-heated when brazed?

Hopefully a macroscopic examination can help answer those questions, and if so I'll post images.

Any other important questions, recognizing that I am paying for the consultation time?

re: the issue of the blow-up shell being a reload. The shooter said he was using factory shells, but was saving the empties to reload.
I have 7 empty shells and 8 unused shells all with the same primer, and 1 blow-up shell with a different primer.
I've contacted him for more information but he has not responded.

Drew, you could ask him if barrel fatigue since the manufacture of the gun at the potential flawed spot could cause this or is something additional, such as corrosion, required as well.

As I see it
1. Everyone who was present said that the sound of the round going off was significantly louder than the rest of the shots being fired.
2. The shell in question must have had a large load of a high energy powder such as Bullseye to blow the gun. It probably was purposely overloaded and not an accidental overload. I do not think that a double load of a powder such as Reddot would have caused the burst chamber.
3. The shooter said that he was firing factory ammo. He is credible. I do not think that anyone would be crazy enough to knowingly load or fire such a shell.
In conclusion I feel the shell in question was purposely overloaded prior to the shooter obtaining the ammo.

I would consider a couple of things. First, I don’t think a slight extractor imprint in the brass is more significant than the blown out brass on the opposite side, the shell looks to have distorted as the shape of the chamber was changing. And second, I do not believe the primer of the blown shell is flattened, to me meaning that at the point the shell was fired it was not over pressure or if over, not significantly.

It’s a mess, but I don’t see a flattened primer cup or other signs like flattened manufacturer stamping on the head of the shell. Apparently, the load fired out of the barrel and there doesn’t appear to have excessive thrust against the breech. It appears to have failed radially, and the extractor happened to be opposite the force that it took to peel the shell open. Only thoughts.

I don't know why it busted. Lots of good guesses here, but I'm waiting for Dr. Drew's experts to tell me what they find through a scientistic investigation!...Geo

A few observations. All of the chamber failures I’ve had firsthand knowledge of were reloads from a progressive loader , all loaded by life long reloaders , they’ve all been 20 or 16 gauge and they have all been in the right barrel. I’m not sure what all this means but I have my suspicions.

Were all of the targets that were being shot at the time orange?

Not sure about the color of the targets.

But they were all loading low pressure loads.

Old Redd Foxx might have fun with your response-- "Thar she Blows"- fitting, as L. C. Smiths are often called "Elsies", are they not.

I believe the LCSCA gruppen does NOT allow members to advertise Smith guns for sale on their website-- Not sure about the Parker-istas, nor the Fox-ists either. Only LCSCA member I know personally is Jent Mitchell- a Virginia Gentleman indeed- Every yeaqr since 2005 he sends me one of their beautiful calendars, and e-mails me and is kind enough to invite me to some of the SC events in the Eastern seaboard area-- Maybe some day I'll do that--with a few of my L.C. Smith 12 bores--

I NEVER shoot reloads in any of my shotguns, regardless of gauge or make or type--I prefer RST, then AA- then Federal, in that order--RWTF

A couple of additional points for whatever contributing value they may have.

Ref: pressure. Someone on the 16ga forum in discussing this event stated:
“I had Tom Armburst test some Factory Herters 1oz #8s a couple years back Fps right around 1200 , psi right at 11500 .”

And, also, again a 2 3/4” shell in a 2 9/16” chamber.

Regardless, glad no one was hurt.
Sorry he lost his Smith.

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!

It's all his silly speculation....

Dr. Drew is looking to blame anything but the 100 plus year old gun.

Fascinating work Dr. Drew. Thanks a bunch. I'm learning,

I concur. Dr. Hause have you had any Krupp samples from either American offerings wearing Belgian Krupp steel or from German inland offerings w/ Krupp Stahl? Somewhere I have a hahn drilling that some Russian ladies demilled by chopping out rectangles on the underside of the tubes just forward of the chambers. So just how much a sample might be required?

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Thank you Raimey. We've got some published Krupp composition studies (a couple of which you likely found) here about 4/5 way down https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dnRLZgcuHfx7uFOHvHCUGnGFiLiset-DTTEK8OtPYVA/edit

Dennis Potter gave me a Krupp segment for the tensile testing, but he did not know the origin or DOM thereof - 113,000 psi!
I didn't have it composition tested however.

I'll decline to test non-U.S. Krupp tubes, but would certainly like to test a Krupp tube from a U.S. maker's gun.

And while we're on the topic, I've got a segment of Fox “Sterlingworth Fluid Compressed Steel” on the way.
A Sterlingworth brochure in 1911 mentioned “chrome-nickel and vanadium steel” barrels and “Chromox High Pressure Fluid Steel” was introduced in 1912
https://books.google.com/books?id=eGvdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA137&lpg

I'll do both composition and tensile testing, which should be of interest to the Fox fellas.

Thanks Hause but me thinks if you chase the composition back on any run of the mill Krupp steel tube that all will have their origins in Liege. So with that said, when comparing apples to apples I really don't think there will be much deviation.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

On these obtains stress values, @ what percent of the strength test/value might we see a failure? I guess better stated, if we know the value for which the steel might falter & we know what the given pressure value for the cartridges, then what does the resulting peak pressure from an obstruction / grease / whatever have to approach in order to start to see a failure?



Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Having discussed this with a mechanical and metallurgical engineer there is no good answer.

There are of course several bursting formula including Barlow's formula P=2 S t / D
P=Bursting pressure in psi.
S=Tensile strength of material in tube wall.
t=Wall thickness in inches.
D=Outside diameter in inches.

Burrard used the Alger Burst Formula
Burst pressure = Ultimate tensile strength x 3(OD – ID) / OD + 2xID

All the formula (including American Standard, Alger, Lame & others) refer to a pipe capped at both ends with a static pressure (a pressure cylinder). Barlow's refers to a thick wall pressure vessel (wall thickness greater than 1/10 – 1/20 ID).
Shotgun barrels are not designed to be pressure vessels as one end is open and the pressure rises and falls quickly.

The Hoop Stress Formula doesn't reliably predict shotgun barrel failure either
https://www.engineersedge.com/material_science/hoop-stress.htm
Shotgun barrels are “thin wall cylinders”

Wallace H. Coxe, in "Smokeless Shotgun Powders: Their Development, Composition and Ballistic Characteristics" published by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. in 1931 cites a study in which a fluid steel barrel was cut to 9” and capped, then a series of progressively increasing pressure loads fired. The barrel cap was blown off and barrel burst at 5,600 psi.

A study by the Royal Military College of Science, sponsored by the Birmingham Proof House and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, showed that an obstruction by 2 fibre wads (total weight of 4 grams) was sufficient to bulge or burst a 12 gauge barrel shooting a 28 gram (slightly less than 1 ounce) load. Peak pressure occurred 22mm (.866”) past the leading edge of the obstruction.

re grease:
Tom Roster
“One test European shotgun manufacturers use to fast-proof barrels if standard proofing methodologies and loads are not available, is to liberally oil the bore and then fire a standard service load in it. The well-oiled bore interior will cause the pressure to rise some 6,000 to 7,000 pounds per square inch (PSI) above the Maximum Average Pressure (MAP) for service loads. And grease inside the bore can cause the pressure levels produced by shotshell service loads to easily double."


OTOH there are many studies documenting how difficult is can be to burst a barrel, including Greener's attempts in 1886
http://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA92

and of course The Double Gun & Single Shot Journal“Finding Out For Myself” series by Sherman Bell with technical assistance from Tom Armbrust esp.
Vol 18, Issue 1, Spring 2007 -
Destructive testing on a Damascus barrel with thinned walls; calculated by O.D. - I.D. and not measured.
Destructive testing using various obstructions, including a 20g shell.
Destructive testing using a shell loaded with 3 1/4 Drams by volume or 56 grains of Unique (similar to “Infallible”) with 1 1/4 oz. shot. The chamber burst with the first shot. The 3 1/4 Dram Equivalent load is 24 grains of “Infallible”, and 56 grains estimated pressure was 50,000 psi.


In this regard, a Parker fella friend Mechanical Engineer who lives in Vegas was investigating hydraulic pressure testing using some of the tubes I've accumulated; unfortunately life and marriage have gotten in the way.

I've had no contact with Zircon/Ron Graham (a metallurgical engineer) who had collected about 40 barrels for testing, including the Parker barrels destroyed by Bell, for several years.

I'll bet a military ordnance engineer might have an answer. Don't you have any PhD buddies up in Huntsville who could help?

Any value for said pressure?



I do such as the >>Rocket City Rednecks<<. But we always preferred non-destructive testing. @ one point in grad school we didn't submit a proposal for non-destructive testing of prophylactics. Can't recall if it was the Government, Trojan or who???

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

A weakened chamber plus a questionable reload = we will never know. Thats it.

Another important factor when testing steel is the Yield or Elastic strength. This is the point at which the Stretched steel does not rebound to its original position or the point of a Bulge. This point cannot be simply taken as a given percentage of the Ultimate Tensile strength as some alloys have a yield of a higher percentage then do others.

As a general rule, Damascus & Low Carbon steels will have a lower yield point in relation to their ultimate than will higher alloy steels. This was how the thought was started that Damascus was better than steel because it would bulge while steel would burst. In reality, it only proved that Damascus had a lower yield strength than did the steel.

Raimey: here are pressures for 1 1/16 oz. loads reported by Major Sir Gerald Burrard, The Modern Shotgun, Volume II, “The Cartridge”, 1955 3rd Revised Edition pressures converted from Long Tons/ Sq. Inch at 1”
12g 2 1/2” 33 gr. Nobel Smokeless (3 Dr. Eq.) with 1 1/16 oz. - 7,885 psi
12g 2 1/2” 33 gr. C&H Smokeless Diamond (3 Dr. Eq.) with 1 1/16 oz. - 8,288 psi
12g 2 1/2” 31 gr. Smokeless Diamond (2.8 Dr. Eq.) with 1 1/16 oz. - 7,179 psi

Modern Kent/Gamebore English Field 12g
2 1/2” 1 oz. Traditional Paper @ 1295 fps - 6526 psi
2 1/2” 1 oz. Pure Gold @ 1295 fps - 7832 psi

Had a very productive meeting at METL this am with both a metallurgist (Andrea) and metallurgical engineer (Ryan). They were quite enthusiastic saying "This is ALOT more interesting that broken bolts!" and a bunch of the employees are "gun guys".
They also commented that the machinists had tears in their eyes chopping up the actions for composition analysis
I gave them the remains for mementos

These again are the questions:
1. Does the divot represent the failure initiation point, and is there evidence of porosity and/or a flaw there?
2. Is there evidence that the breech end barrel wall was over-heated in the original brazing?
3. Is there evidence that the braze joint failed, or that it was never properly brazed?
4. Is there evidence of low cycle fatigue?

re: #1 and #2 they agreed there was visual suggestion thereof, but were also quite clear in saying that they are frequently proved wrong by the microscopic examination.
re: #3 & #4 no way to tell without microscopic exam.

They agreed it would be much easier (cheaper) if we had the missing chunk, but we don't, so they will cut out the segment of barrel in question and do scanning electron microscopy to definitively answer those questions. They will provide full size images for posting here and on my website.

Did anyone check to see if the missing chunk is stuck in the tree it hit?

Heard from METL yesterday pm. The plan was to saw out the medial section of the barrel



BUT the machinist and metallurgist were concerned that the heat from the saw might distort the morphology of the fracture edge
I've asked them to not destroy the left barrel, which still might have some value as a replacement for another gun. The lifted rib could probably be harvested also.

Once again, it would be SO much easier with the missing chunk. I suspect tick & snake season has begun in N. Carolina and digging through the brush at Deep River would not be much fun.

METL will see what they can do, but it's obviously not worth the effort and (my) $s if a proper SEM can't be obtained.

Steel looks old and rotten to me...just saying.

Might try a saw that uses lubricant like most industrial horizontal band saws do. Just a little fluid drops the temp. dramatically.

Yes, that's the plan Steve.

Just heard from Ryan, and they believe they can get a good sample to evaluate the edge microstructure and braze. Unfortunately, the divot can't be cut out without cutting into the left barrel, but they agree that very likely IS the initiation point.

I’d be happy to walk around Deep River and look for it, if someone’s got a metal detector I can borrow and points me to the right station.

Thank you Bill. I sent a message to the shooter.

Perhaps you can elaborate on the exact process that causes steel to be "old and rotten". And if you don't think that we should be shooting old guns, then why are you here? Have a great day jOe.

The process is called Mother time and Father neglect.

The corrosion is evident in the picture...what caused it loose rib ?

Fact is this forum isn't just for people shooting old guns...take Dr. Drew he just likes to talk about shooting old guns.

I've owned, shot and hunted with more than my share of 100 year old plus guns...one day I just decided to get out before one blew up in my face.

Yeah. Me too. Over 100 years, who knows what some maniac had put through those barrels.

My favorite guns which I shot the most were all in the 100+-year-old category. I'm not able to shoot much anymore, now being in my third round of treatments for DLBCL, (Diffuse Large B Cell, Lymphoma,) This is a Non-Hodgkins type.

At this point, I am not too concerned about one of my 100+-year-old guns doing me in. If one did that just might be a better way to go, With My Boots On as the old Cowboys used to say.

I'll keep you in my prayers. Im so very sorry you still fighting this.

JHJ;
Thanks for the concern & Prayers. My post may have sounded as if I were in a state of depression, actually, I am in quite High Spirits.

I have started a study group, just call me the Guinea Pig, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville TN. Although I have not regained a lot of strength lost when I went through Chemo beginning in Oct of 2017 for these first two treatments at least I do not seem to be losing any more.

My Grandson came up a few weeks ago & we got out in the yard & did some shooting, mostly .22s but I did shoot his MI Rifle which I had not fired one of these a quite a few years. The .22s we shot were a low wall Win 1885 chambered in .22 short or long, we shot shorts. The other was a little Win bolt action single shot model 04A chambered for the long rifle.

I am just too much at risk of falling though, to scramble around these old TN hillsides as I used to do.

Hang in there Mr.Miller

Drive on, Doc Drew. More great stuff. You are the Sherlock Holmes of doublegunshop.

Good news from METL. They were able to harvest a good section of the barrel. Should have photomicrographs next week.

Report just arrived from METL

To remind us, Dewey Vicknair's labels



The cut section



The initiation point



METL's summary as bold bullet points

• The fracture surface near the center of the barrel wall showed quasi-cleavage and transgranular brittle fracture. The inner and outer diameter surfaces displayed ductile dimpling features, indicative of overload.

• Ductile dimpling was observed along the inner and outer diameters of the barrel as well as near the suspected initiation site. No microscopic indicators of fatigue were observed.

• The suspected initiation site showed a large cavity surrounded by what appeared to be voids left by inclusions.

Initiation point cleavage. No low cycle fatigue striations.



• The braze was extensively contaminated, particularly near the suspected initiation site.
• The contamination in the braze was ferrous and appeared to be heavily oxidized.

"The braze was examined at high magnifications. The region where contamination was observed was consistent with ferrous, oxidized debris. The braze material was consistent with a copper-zinc braze filler. Substantial contamination was observed throughout the inner braze surface. Cross-sections from the good and bad braze areas were taken and showed substantial difference in compositions between the braze material and the contaminated regions."

Oxidized debris = burned steel

Good braze



Bad braze with manganese sulfide inclusions



Oxidized steel with inclusions



Unanswered questions:

Would the chamber have burst without the over-pressure shell?

Is the top rib extension wedge brazed to the thin medial barrel wall a design defect, or was this a manufacturing error?

Did the use of 2 3/4” shells in a 2 9/16” chamber add to the over-pressure?
The once fired Cheddite hulls are a full 2 3/4”. Sherman Bell's study of 2 3/4” shells in 2 1/2” chambers with a 7/16” forcing cone showed a rise in pressure from 228 psi to 1216 psi compared to 2 3/4” chambers with a 1” forcing cone.

More thoughts to follow. Feel free to contribute meaningful opinions.

[quote=Drew Hause].....Is the top rib extension wedge brazed to the thin medial barrel wall a design defect, or was this a manufacturing error?.....[quote]
Only curious, with all the comments about oxidation, was any thought given to the possibility that changes happened to the gun over the last many decades? Rather than all the oxidation being inherent to this gun, could plain old rust have altered once sound material or exacerbated once inconsequential inclusions?

If it’s inherent, any thought about what to look for? Great batch of follow up pictures and comments. Thanks much Doc Drew.

Sounds like the forum's analysis was about right.

I have a hard time saying that a gun that operated properly for 100 years before failing had a design defect. I think at that point you are passed the anticipated life expectancy for the design. That doesn't mean the failure wasn't due to the design I just can't use the word defect.

We all need to realize that when shooting guns this old--and I do it, my oldest is 1884--we are taking more risk than with a new gun.

So to me the question is finding indicators of potential impending failure.

Unfortunately, from the pictures of the destroyed barrels it looks like there is no way to tell if there was any visible sign on the exterior or interior that could have been a clue, however minor.

Anyone else have ideas on what to look for?

L.C. Smith Maker, Syracuse manufactured about 1,600 hammerless guns. Hunter Arms produced about 530,000 Smith hammer and hammerless sidelocks, and another about 80,000 Fulton boxlocks. If they made time-bombs with an intrinsic design flaw, one would think a plague of blown barrels would be apparent by now. Clearly THIS 110 year old gun had a manufacturing defect, but would it have failed without an over-pressure load in a short chamber?

A study complimentary to the Birmingham Proof House Trial was published in in The Field June 6, 1891 by Horatio F. Phillips, a “staff experimenter” comparing brazed and unbrazed Steel and Damascus barrels
http://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA14&lpg
"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 would seem that this large margin of safety was what saved this gun until 2019. It is significant that there was no microscopic evidence of low cycle fatigue - the pressures to which the breech braze and barrel was subjected was below the yield strength of the steel. The failure was initiated at an area with inclusions and a braze joint contaminated with "burned" steel.

It would be quite interesting to evaluate the braze on the left, but this would require destroying the left tube, which still has some value, and more money

Other reasonable opinions are most welcome.

Interesting. Since I reload that same hull--which I would shoot in short-chambered 16's if I currently had one--I'd be interested in knowing the formula used. I had mine tested by Tom Armbrust. Avg MV: 1182 fps. Avg pressure: 7420 psi. I've shot a whole bunch of reloaded 2 3/4" 12ga shells in Brit/Euro guns with 2 1/2" chambers. Pressure and MV very similar to my 16ga reload.

re: how to evaluate vintage braze joints. Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) can't test what the stuff can't get to.

This is a negative image radiograph of a Smith barrel (you can see the bulge just forward of the chamber) which would be of no help in evaluating the integrity of the braze joint. There is porosity in the top rib and bottom rib solder, and pits in the barrel bore which can not really be differentiated from defects within the barrel wall.



The dark area just forward of the breech is silver solder joining the barrels

re: the reload recipe. The shooter believed he was using factory loads, and has not responded to any of my emails since I received the barrels.

Well Rigby, unfortunately, it is not considered acceptable here to use the brain God gave you. To question the conclusions reached here simply isn't welcome.

For example, I was roundly criticized in the first thread pertaining to this barrel burst for agreeing with another guys observation, and then elaborating upon that. The inclusion that is finally accepted as the point where the burst was initiated seemed apparent enough to the naked eye. And the corrosion within the braze joint was readily apparent as well.

The defect wasn't a "design" defect in all likelihood, because the vast majority of L.C. Smith guns with this construction have not failed... and most likely won't fail under similar circumstances.

The defect was there hidden within the steel before that steel was ever fabricated into a shotgun barrel. As I said in the earlier thread, steel is not necessarily homogeneous and free of internal flaws. Sometimes internal defects or inclusions are revealed during machining, and sometimes they remain hidden.

To say this steel was "burned" is silly. To burn solid steel without the addition of oxygen (as with a burning torch) usually requires a temperature above the melting point, i.e., roughly 2800 degrees F. At that ridiculously high temperature, all of the zinc would be vaporized out of copper-zinc brazing material. Here's what Prince & Izant, a manufacturer of brazing rod has to say:

Copper-Zinc Brazing Filler Metals

Copper-Zinc brazing alloys are used for their high strength and stress characteristics. These alloys are brazed using torch, furnace or induction heating but be mindful of overheating – doing so can vaporize the zinc and leave voids in the joint.

It is apparent that this braze joint was defective. We can never know if the corrosion got worse over time, or if it was this bad all along. Chances are that it got worse over time, or it might have failed decades ago. But we'll never know the chamber pressure when it blew up. The ferrous oxide contamination suggests that there was probably rust on the tube at the time of brazing, and that there was insufficient fluxing. As the cautionary note from Prince & Izant suggests, it seems very possible that there was overheating during the brazing process, leaving a void, but not nearly enough to burn steel. Burning steel is an EXTREME overheating that actually burns the carbon out of the steel.

Think about this... melting steel in an electric furnace doesn't "burn" the carbon out of it, so why would simple overheating during brazing burn the carbon out of the steel? And think about welding... where base metals and filler rod are fused by melting them together. How strong would those welds be if we "burned" the steel during that process?
Oh wait, scratch that thought... we're not supposed to think here, or question the Preacher.

Despite the thinness of the chamber wall at the point of the burst, this accident probably would never have happened with a good braze joint and barrel steel that did not contain a large inclusion (probably rolled-in scale)in the chamber area. Hundreds of thousands of L.C. Smith guns that didn't blow up are proof of that. The inclusion and its' location, combined with the defective braze joint created a perfect storm. There are still unanswered questions about the load or reload, and it seems strange that the guy who had this gun blow up while he was shooting it won't provide any more information. When I experienced temporary blindness after a complete head separation in a .22-250, I wanted to know why, and left no stone unturned.

Well this explains a lot.

I experienced temporary blindness after a complete head separation.

Oops never mind my bad.
Misunderstood.

I've confirmed with the metallurgist at METL that the "contamination" between the barrel and top rib extension wedge is manganese sulfide and metal oxides ie. corrosion and "burned" (over-heated) surface steel and filler metal. "Burned" doesn't mean "melted" ie the surface of a cook pan left on the stove is "burned" and discolored.
Purposefully not understanding semantics in order to argue is of no help, but we are appropriately impressed.

Per my previous statement, the load that blew the chamber certainly looks like a reload to me. It has the same Cheddite primer I use when reloading--which is different in appearance from the primer used in factory Herter's 16's.

"Burned" doesn't mean "melted" ie the surface of a cook pan left on the stove is "burned" and discolored.

In my expert a pot left on a burner will only blacken from the residual food oil or soap left on the pot. If the pot is well cleaned it heats up but doesn’t burn ie blacken

I think burned can mean heated enough for the carbon that forms the steel starts to burn out of the steel. It might look like the metal is sparking. The temperature that it takes for that to happen is so much higher than the likely brazing temperature that it might be difficult to find any good brazing near the area.

The lost piece, initiation point, has a random appearing shape. If it were all composed of a foundry inclusion, possibly it might have the shape of an elongated streak when the barrel was forged to length. Maybe, subsequent corrosion has something to do with this mishap. The ‘bad braze’ does seem to center around the ‘inclusion’ and extend along the barrel, the way rust might find a seam.

I think these lab folks were able to identify mill slag in some of the Damascus samples. Maybe, if the term corrosion is used it has to do with rust that was formed after the gun left the factory? Only thoughts.

Exactly Tamid, and please all, note that I never said the surface of the barrel was melted. Burned steel is steel which has had some or all of the carbon burned out of it due to extreme overheating. I'm pretty sure I understand the difference between a gun barrel and a scorched pot or frying pan... without consulting any metallurgist. In fact, if all of the carbon gets burned out, it is no longer steel.

Here's part of the METL metallurgical report posted by the Preacher in his post #547574. I put some pertinent parts in BOLD COLORED TYPE, since the Preacher has disingenuously suggested that I purposely misunderstood semantics in order to argue.



Now here's some semantics to chew on... a definition of "FERROUS", for someone who has no real knowledge, and who needs to pay Professional Metallurgists for these reports, so he can post them and convince guys here that he is some kind of shotgun barrel expert:

FER·ROUS

adjective: ferrous

*(chiefly of metals) containing or consisting of iron.

* Chemistry of iron with a valence of two; of iron(II)

So we see that his precious METL report clearly stated that "The region where contamination was observed was consistent with ferrous, oxidized debris." But now, today, it has magically become "manganese sulfide and metal oxides ie. corrosion and "burned" (over-heated) surface steel and filler metal."

After posting the METL Report, the Preacher made this totally false and erroneous statement:



To think that some here are just enthralled with this unadulterated horse-shit!

So this is your Doublegunshop Barrel Expert... the same expert who actually argued for a couple days recently that lengthening the chambers of vintage shotgun barrels could result in GREATER BARREL WALL THICKNESS at the end of the re-cut chambers!

Consider also that ferrous oxide, also known as wustite, is a black iron oxide that forms during barrel blacking when red oxide (hydrated ferric oxide) is converted during the boiling in water between rusting cycles. Makes you wonder whether this contamination was a result of the brazing process, or maybe was deposited during the barrel blacking process??? Or did we just forget that these barrels, with a large void in the braze joint, were coated with rusting solution and rusted and boiled as part of their production?

Several days ago, the Preacher was crying because someone had sent him an email or PM suggesting that he had tampered with the ruptured shotshell from this barrel burst. He was all butt hurt that someone would think he would do such a thing. When he repeatedly gets caught pulling crap like this, is it any wonder?

Rib extension above, "Contamination" is black, braze is gold, porous steel on right



"Contamination" at 150X and inclusions



Inclusion EDX - manganese sulfide



EDX of "contamination" area - not all Fe



EDX of good braze = filler material



Horseshit? From the metallurgist?

I know we've made our peace off line Keith, but why do continue to such an a-hole to someone who has good intensions? really! you add nothing to the discussion but hatred...which we have enough of...if you've seen the news of of late. Give it a rest already...there must be something you can do better with your remaining time on earth with...no?

Come on Dave...is this the site you've envisioned?

Might be of interest - the cut



Breech end of braze