besides ithaca and fox, what other american makers used krupp barrels?

+ meridan...

In England, both Purdey and Edwinson Green at least.

LeFever and L.C. Smith- after 1917 and the Lusitania, not so many-- RWTF

Syracuse Arms and Hollenbeck Gun Co. And LC Smith didn't catalog Krupp barrels after 1905; but I've seen an Ideal Grade and an A2 Grade with Krupp barrels, both produced during WWI. On the Ideal the Krupp trademark had been over-stamped "London Steel". With the A2 the shipping records noted the barrel steel type as being "Krupp", but the Krupp trademarks on the bottom of the tubes had been carded off; and atop the barrels Hunter had engraved the words "Monogram Steel". Who knows but I suspect German products might not have been held in high esteem during WWI, therefore trademarks were either obscured or removed.

1918 16g Field with Krupp over-stamped with Armor Steel



As Bro. Tom said, Krupp barrels were cataloged by Hunter Arms as an available option only 1900-1905.
It seems likely that Krupp was licensed to Cockerill Sambre, as Fluss Stahl Krupp Essen marked tubes stamped with the "ACL" of Acier Cockerill Liegeoise or with “LLH” of Laurent Lochet-Habran are found on some U.S. maker's barrels.

The first Lefever with Krupp steel barrels was in 1894. c. 1904 B, C, D & E grades were offered with Krupp steel.

About 1906 the Baker R (replacing the A grade) was available with Krupp steel.

As mentioned, the 1910 Meriden Firearms Co. catalog shows the following grades and barrels:
A with Whitworth, Krupp, or 6-blade damascus for $250 with AE;
B with Krupp or 6-blade for $185 with AE;
C with Krupp or 4-blade for $110 with AE;
D "Trap Gun" with Krupp or 3-blade for $90 with AE;
E "Quail Gun" with Krupp and ONLY 16G for $60 (no AE offered);
F with Krupp or 3-blade for $60 with AE;
G with Krupp for $40.

The Meriden Tournament grade had Krupp in the Sears 1915 and 1917 catalogs



and the Meriden Ejector No. 35



Ithaca Flues No. 2 and higher offered Krupp in 1913.



1917 and 1924 Janney, Semple, Hill & Co., Minneapolis catalogs Krupp starts with No. 3

collecting krupp barrelled guns would be an interesting specialty...

Baker Gun and Forging Co. used Krupp barrels on several models.

J. Stevens A&T Co. used them. My Model 375 has Krupp tubes.

John

I have been told that Krupp barrels where sold here in Brit land under the name of 'Siemens Steel."

I don't believe that Siemens ever operated any steel mills. They were, and still are, a German engineering corporation, and they were involved in the development of the Siemens-Martin Open Hearth steel process. This process was used in Krupp steel mills.

But all this talk about Krupp and Siemens is likely to raise the ire of our two dedicated Nazi Hunters, Bob Cash and Sissy Chrissy nca225. ed's idea of collecting guns with Krupp barrels may get him branded as a Nazi collaborator, and a war criminal.

I don't think this is right.

1. There was a steel making process called Siemens-Martin, which came out after Bessemer, but before Krupp. Also, Siemens-Martin was of English origin, I believe.
2. Siemens (the German conglomerate) was not connected to Krupp as far as I know. So it would have been an odd (and litigiously questionable) name to use.

NDG

My Siemens "cut & paste" research

William Siemens established the “Sample Steelworks” to develop the Siemens-Martin “Open Hearth” process in 1865, and his steel was in general industrial use 1870 - 1875.
http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/William_Siemens

Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute
https://books.google.com/books?id=xsc-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA52&lpg

The first commercially successful “Open Hearth” furnace was established in the U.S. by a Siemens’ employee, Samuel Wellman at the Bay State Iron Co. in 1870.
https://books.google.com/books?id=9VZHAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA29&lpg

The Industrial Revolution in America: Iron and Steel
https://books.google.com/books?id=fUIbzBymAjIC&pg=PA79&lpg

The National Armory in Springfield began using Siemens-Martin steel for small arms about 1878.

P. Webley & Son began using Siemens steel barrels about 1880 and reported excellent results.

John Henry Walsh, The Modern Sportsman's Gun and Rifle: Including Game and Wildfowl Guns, Sporting and Match Rifles, and Revolvers, Volume 1, 1882
“Siemen’s Steel for Gun Barrels”
http://books.google.com/books?id=OLwUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA445&vq
A 13 bore Siemens barrel did not bulge until 19 1/4 Dram Black Powder with a 1 1/4 oz. ball. Siemens then reported a tensile strength of 55,000 - 60,000; other sources list 62,700 psi.

Shooting, Thomas de Grey Walsingham, Ralph Payne-Gallwey, Gerald Lascelles, Archibald John Stuart-Wortley, Simon Fraser Lovat, Charles Lennox Kerr, 1886
http://books.google.com/books?id=MT9NF4BnAFIC
‘Siemens’ steel barrels are fairly good and very trustworthy for cheap weapons, but the best now manufactured are known as ‘Whitworth fluid compressed steel,’ and are of excellent quality, though considerably more costly than are the ‘Siemens.’

W.W. Greener however was not impressed, writing in Modern Shotguns in 1888, “The Bursting Strain of Gun Barrels”
The best solid steel barrels are the “fluid compressed steel” tubes manufactured by Sir Joseph Whitworth's Company. They are very expensive, of uniform good quality, and although they are not, in the author's opinion, equal to best twist barrels, he is very pleased to use them at the request of any sports man requiring them. Siemens' steel and several other varieties drilled from the solid drawn into tubes in the rolling mill, are offered at a less price than the Whitworth barrels, and are often inferior in quality.

William Evans stated he preferred Siemens barrels in his 1893 catalog.

“Steel Gun Barrel Gaining In Public Favor”
March 12, 1898 Sporting Life
https://digital.la84.org/digital/collection/p17103coll17/id/44565
Steel gun barrels have gained in public favor very rapidly in the last few years, and seem to be driving the figured barrels to the limbo of forgotten necessities just as surely and as certainly as Nitro powers have driven our old black and smoky friend to the some place. Figured barrels never have been made, and from the great number of weldings that are necessary to make a barrel, probably never can be made, as perfect as can a steel barrel. Many of the figured barrels, damascus, laminated or twist, show defects in the welding before they are submitted to proof, others fail while being proved, others show the defects of welding while being finished and browned, while still others show defects after being used for a short time. Of course, all steel Barrels are not perfect, and very few may be considered so except the Whitworth fluid compressed steel barrels. As the Whitworths are about the only people who make barrels from their own steel they have an interest and pride in the perfection of their own barrels.
The Seimens-Martin steel is first-class beyond a doubt, but they do not. forge barrels; they only make the steel. Give a dozen different barrel forgers each a piece of the same quality of steel and let each one forge a barrel, and the result will be, probably, a dozen barrels of as many different grades. During the process of forging some of the workmen may over heat the metal, while others may not heat it enough; in either, case an imperfect barrel may be the result. Seimens-Martin steel, like other steels for gun barrels, is made of several grades or qualities, consequently Seimens-Martin barrels, like other steel barrels, except the Whitworth, which is only made of the highest quality, are made of various grades- or qualities. If the metal is overheated while the barrels are being forged the chemical union between the carbon and the iron will be destroyed-to a certain extent, and if the metal has not been heated sufficiently it will be over strained and weakened during the process of forging, and imperfect barrels will be the result in either case. The quality of the barrels depends very materially on the intelligence of the workman and the perfection of the appliances at hand. The cheaper grades of steel barrels are of considerably better quality than they were a few years ago. and that they will be improved in quality as time passes may reasonably be expected.

It was reported in “Machine-tool Trade in Belgium”, United States. Dept. of Commerce and Labor, 1909 that the Pieper works in Liege only used German Siemens-Martin steel
https://books.google.com/books?id=3nBKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA90&lpg

Laurent Lochet-Habran, Liege was licensed to produce Siemens-Martin Acier Special in the 1930s.

1930 lettre annale



1935 Kaufmann Freres double rifle; 'MSA' Martin Siemens Acier / Siemens-Martin tubes by L. Lochet-Habran, barrels by Jean Falla Ateliers (1931-1953)



Buturlin cited studies conducted at TOZ (Tula Arms Plant) likely immediately before WWI listing Russian Siemens-Martin tensile strength as 85,300 – 92,400 psi.

Multiple products were no doubt offered based on the intended application.

Pre-WWI Siemens may have been similar to AISI 1021 - 1034 Carbon Steels.
The Sampling and Chemical Analysis of Iron and Steel, 1915
http://books.google.com/books?id=03w6AAAAMAAJ&dq

At least one Remington EEO had Krupp barrels.

To add one additional note to Syracuse Arms use of Krupp barrels, Krupp barrels were optional on Grades A, A-1, B, and C (Damascus barrels were standard); while the highest Grade D featured Damascus or optional Whitworth steel). Krupp barrels seemed to be a popular choice for the Grade A and the seldom seen A-1 models, as about half of those models recorded featured Krupp barrels. One of the three C Grade guns recorded to date had Krupp barrels; but to date I've not recorded a single Grade B gun with Krupp barrels. Syracuse apparently made a special run, or filled a special order for Grade 3 guns with Krupp barrels as I've recorded two examples.

Tobin.

Just to make things clear there where two Siemens companies working up to the great war. Siemens AG fully Germany owned by the Siemens family, then there was Siemens here in Brit land a true British company owned by William Siemens who became a British Citizen also made Sir William Siemens just before his death and given a plaque in Westminster Abby. So the Siemens name here was at this time not thought of as a German company though at the beginning of the great war the Brit government sequestered all of the Siemens manufacturing plants taking them into state ownership. I did work for Siemens at a time when Siemens AG decided to re obtain some of the parts and trade names of William, such as "Osram" and parts of the old GEC empire including the Alstom Works at Stafford one of Williams largest factory sites that still had the major road maned Siemens drive after all this time.

Are Krupp barrels still being made ? Or is there new old stock around. I have seen new Galazan Fox guns with Krupp barrels. Are they real or just engraved with the Krupp name ?

Really?!?! That is a big surprise. I dont think Thysson-Krupp makes them, but maybe someone else does acknowledging the patent?????

They don't say Essen, do they?

NDG

I have a Greener Monarch Imperial in 16 gauge. It came originally from the factory with one set of Siemens barrels and one set of Whitworth barrels. At the time the gun was a highest grade at 70 guineas.

your greener sounds wonderful...

Baker made some models with Krupp barrels --

Researcher, good catalog cuts. Baker seemed to drop and add grades often. It seems the dropped grade might reappear as another grade sometimes. As far as Krupp barrels on a Baker I have seen them on Paragons, L Grades, R Grades, and even S Grades where the Krupp name was overstamped as another steel type of lower grade. Krupp barrels appeared on the single barrel traps, Baker Ejector, and probably others that I am forgetting at the moment.

My Royal Gun Company (Hollenbeck/LeFever), SBT Ejector, mfg 1908.
Stamped behind forend lug: FLUSS-STAHL-KRUPP-ESSEN.

John

I am aware of two german drillings with Krupp BBls.
1 L. Rausch ca. 1907 labeled Flusstahl Krupp Essen
2 Aug. Jung ca. 1936 labeled Krupp stahl Primo
I think drillings frequently used Krupp Barrels

I dont know if we're ever really going to know the true history of domestic fluid steel. I chased some of this down some time ago and it was a honey comb of dead ends. Basically, there ar several circumstantial things which in their totality are 'suggestive'...

1. It's known that Krupp (I forget which patriarch) came to the U.S. for the 1893 Chicago Fair, and that he met with American steel execs on that trip.

2. Shortly after this time 1 or 2 American companies (Bethleham was one) began offering improved fluid steel for railroad rails.

3. Not long thereafter several new 'trade names' of fluid steel began to be marketed by American gun companies.

4. This accelerated greatly after the outbreak of WW1.

So what can we make of this? Well, we know the importation of steel would have been highly regulated.
So...was did Krupp license their process to U.S. (and others?) companies, settling on making SOME money rather than suffer defending their patents internationally?

Did American (and others) essentially ramp up producing Krupp recipe steel after WW1 outbreak in violation of Krupp's patents, because they were a war enemy?

Any of of this is possible, but Im only speculating. I would definitely like to know the compositional differences between Krupp and LC Smith "Armor" steel, or Remington "Ordnance" steel, Lefever "Imperial" steel, etc.

They all came out in a similar time frame. Were they Krupp recipe sourced elsewhere, unatributed, because the Krupp's were kraut collaborators? Who the heck knows.

I gave up looking. What cant be denied is Krupp made damn good steel, but that their war time efforts in WW1 and WW2 give them a dubious place in history.

I own an E grade lefever with Krupp barrels...it is fantastic.

NDG

Interesting and relevant thread from 2009 with lots of contributions from Raimey
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forum...p;Board=1&main=13559&type=thread

As mentioned, Krupp marked tubes stamped “Acier Cockerill” or with the “LLH” of Laurent Lochet-Habran are commonly found on Belgian doubles.

And we know that the vast majority of "rough forged tubes" used by U.S. double gun makers were sourced in Belgian.

We also know Carnegie and Bethlehem Steel were licensed to manufacture Krupp steel plate in 1897; New York Times Nov. 7th, 1897
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9A00E5DA123CE433A25754C0A9679D94669ED7CF

But I am not aware of evidence that either made Krupp licensed shotgun barrel steel.

Winchester, Remington and Stevens did use domestically produced barrel steel.

Send me a chunk of your Lefever Krupp barrel and I'll take it over to METL for composition analysis

Dennis Potter sent me a sample of Krupp for the tensile testing study but the source and age was unknown so I didn't think composition analysis would be meaningful. The tensile strength was 113,000 psi.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cvqRzkg0wEjhAAcFWr8gFi7aPFRsSIJ_hahfDxmrNAU/edit

Scroll down almost to the bottom here and there is a little information about Krupp composition, mostly from the 2009 thread
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dnRLZgcuHfx7uFOHvHCUGnGFiLiset-DTTEK8OtPYVA/edit

Yes, Ive seen that NY Times article too Drew. I also have a reference book about turn of the century int'l trade which talks a lot about steel.

I didnt mean to infer that those U.S. steelmakers were making barrels (although clearly they COULD have). I should have clarified...I mentioned it to say that clearly Krupp was licencing their method, and if they did so in Belgium as well, then it would suggest that maybe quite a few "makes" of fluid steel were actually Krupp recipe.

This would only have accelerated after the outbreak of WW1, when nobody felt the need to pay for it anymore..."wartime spoils," as it were.

I wonder if by the end of WW1 "Krupp steel" had essentially just become the standard recipe for fluid barrel steel.

Sort of the way the Mauser action was so thoroughly "borrowed" until it simply became rebranded as "bolt action." Pity poor ole Paul Mauser...but nobody's crying tears for Krupp.

NDG

Guns of the highest grade would be where you would find "Krupp Special" steel barrels. I can think of only one, a Lefever Crossbolt in Optimus grade. Their 1901 or 1902 catalog offered this steel on the Optimus. Krupp Special Steel was a large step up from Krupp Steel.

Composition analysis of a single sample of steel is only meaningful for that one particular heat (or batch) of steel.

There still seems to be a lot of confusion about this matter here. Steel is not an element. It is an alloy, or more accurately, a term to describe a very wide range of different alloys of iron and other elements. It is like trying to describe bread without differentiating all of the different varieties and recipes and methods for baking bread. Even two different batches of bread, using the same ingredients and baked by the same cook, can have a slightly different taste and texture. And because of the wider range of purity in the ingredients making up any particular heat of steel, it is far more difficult to replicate the composition of different heats of steel than it is for a baker making different batches of bread.

Pre-WWII Krupp steel mills mainly utilized Bessemer and Siemens-Martin processes. The Siemens-Martin Open Hearth process was slower than Bessemer Converters, but more controllable. What made their steel famous and highly regarded was mostly the same things that gave Eskiltunas, Solingen, Bohler and others their own stellar reputations. And that is the quality and purity of their ingredients, the recipe or composition, the process used to make it, and the attention to details like time, temperature, degassing, removal of impurities, etc. Even the composition of the fire-brick used to line the furnaces can affect the quality and final product. All of that is a function of the men who make it and the management who decide to invest in better materials and processes. So like baking bread, two different Melters (The guy in charge of the furnace operations) using the same ingredients and the same recipe in the same oven can and do have slightly different outcomes.

Even the same Melter producing consecutive heats of the same product order can have a different outcome. For example, if a heat calls for 20 tons of automotive scrap, some of those scrap cars may contain contaminants such as lead, copper, or other unseen materials that can affect the final product, or even cause an entire heat to be discarded or utilized for something else than what the customer wanted. There are radiation detectors in steel mills to detect radioactive scrap which could contaminate an entire heat. At the integrated steel mill where I once worked, I saw them opening baled scrap cars with dynamite because they noticed an increase in slag production from the L-D BOF and Electric Furnace operations They found that a scrap dealer was filling up cars with broken cement, drywall gypsum, and other garbage before baling to increase weight. This is why quality steelmakers have their own in-house Met Labs to test every heat during the melt, and after the heat is poured, hot rolled, cold rolled, pickled, annealed, and processed. Crappy steelmakers such as found in China and Taiwan are not as concerned with the composition and attention to detail or testing.

The steel Krupp marketed to gun makers for shotgun barrels is probably quite different than Krupp steel intended for railroad rails, ship hulls, or structural I-beams. It is possible, and even likely, that different barrel makers who used Krupp steel utilized different grades of Krupp fluid steel, and it isn't all the same stuff. And when we see "Siemens-Martin Steel" on a set of shotgun barrels, that does not mean those tube or the steel used to produce them came from some Siemens-Martin Steel Mill... rather, it means they were produced by some mill that utilized the Siemens-Martin Open Hearth process. Because of that, metallurgical testing of a set of barrels stamped "Siemens-Martin" may tell us almost nothing about another set with the same mark. It is merely a marketing term to tell us how it was made, but not who made it, what ingredients it contains, or ultimate strength or purity.

American Rifleman, April 8, 1915, Fred Adolph, “More About Gun Barrel Steel”
https://books.google.com/books?id=EpcwAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA25&lpg
“Krupp makes 200 kinds of steels”

How did Krupp convince buying customers they had a steel perfect for the intended application? By chemical and physical property analysis, and no doubt performance. Crude analysis had been available since the 1860s.

The Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, Volume 31, Issue 2, 1881
“Application of Solid Steel to the Manufacture of Small Arms, Projectiles, and Ordnance”
https://books.google.com/books?id=BCJDAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA456&lpg

The Mechanical and Other Properties of Iron and Steel in Connection with Their Chemical Composition, 1891 includes analysis of small arms gun barrel (not cannon) steels
https://books.google.com/books?id=-c8xAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA30&dq

The numbers were obviously not as accurate as those derived by Optical Emission Spectroscopy (OES), and were an average of samples.
And OES today measures other components not measured in 1880; Silicon, Chromium, Nickel, Copper, Moybdenum, Columbium, Titanium, Aluminum, Tin, Tungsten, Vanadium & Cobalt

Pre-WWI Krupp Gun Barrel Fluss Stahl was reported as:
Carbon - .45%
Manganese - .7%
Phosphorus and Sulfur both < .035%
But obviously that may not apply to 1890s Fluss Stahl or post-WWII Fluss Stahl

With the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act the American Iron and Steel Institute began publishing “Steel Products Manuals” with the “Steel Code Tables”. The Society of Automotive Engineers also published a “SAE Handbook” with a similar numbering system, and in the early 40s the tables became the SAE-AISI Code Designations.
The standards are reported in a range; this is the industrial standard for AISI 1020
Carbon - 0.17 - 0.23%
Manganese - 0.3 - .6%
Phosphorus < .04%
Sulfur < .05%

So if a paying customer specified .2% carbon gun steel, within the specified range is what they got. And the physical properties thereof would help confirm the quality thereof.

To argue that even at the turn-of-the-century the purchasers of steel products had no idea what they were buying (and didn't employ chemists and metallurgists to confirm) is just silly.

Stevens 280 Krupp 1907



J. Stevens Catalog No. 53 1911

To suggest that anyone here made such an argument is even sillier. I would be interested in knowing what prompted this absurd statement???

However, there are examples of steel purchasers making poor decisions when purchasing steel. As we have discussed here in the past, the grade of steel used to fabricate the hull of the Titanic was not the best choice for side-swiping an iceberg in frigid salt-water.

Modern metallurgical testing equipment and methods are much more capable of confirming that testing a single sample of gun barrel steel will only tell you about the steel in that particular heat. Barrels with the same stamp that were produced a year earlier or later may be quite different. But fortunately, that variability has little bearing on the ability of a shotgun to handle standard loads.

More courtesy of Bro. Raimey
https://doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=354793&page=3
"The only break in this Whitworth tradition was in 1898, when the steel workers went on strike. Between July and December of that year Purdey's had to go to Krupp for barrels and made eighty-three guns with their tubes."

Another very knowledgeable Damascus and Fluid Steel shotgun barrel guy was PeteM, who constantly proved to us that "Copy and Paste" research is not really a bad thing... so long as you actually understand the subject:

It is most encouraging William that you now appear to comprehend that (crude) composition analysis was available even in the 1860s, suggesting that when the General Manager at Hunter Arms, or Ithaca, or Lefever in 1900 ordered from Belgium a rough forged tube of barrel steel with specific characteristics, that is what they received, rather than whatever happened to appear out of the pour.

Although I admire your perseverance, your ongoing attempts to delegitimize the results of the composition studies ignore the fact that I did my best to document the DOM of the barrels tested. And since tubes were received in batches, it would seem quite reasonable that tubes used over a period of time (or at least until the General Manager changed the specifications of the order) would be quite similar.
As stated, I did tensile test Bro. Potter's Krupp barrel segment, but did not composition test the sample not knowing the source or DOM.

My class in statistics at MU SOM as a MS1 was in 1974, and I get that a sample of one does not a statistically valid study make. We don't know everything; however I do believe we have learned something from the effort, both on my part and that of Dave Suponski's Parker barrel study. I'm particularly gratified that we now know the composition of Model 12 Nickel Steel and (1937) Winchester Proof Steel.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dnRLZgcuHfx7uFOHvHCUGnGFiLiset-DTTEK8OtPYVA/edit

So please feel free to send me a chunk of whichever Lefever you wish to contribute to (junk) science

That's amusing Preacher. And I have noticed that you only call me William when your panties are wedged way up your ass-crack, so you must be particularly incensed.

But that doesn't change your typical dishonesty. I'd like to put you on the spot here and challenge you to show us where I ever stated or even alluded to the notion that there was no chemical or compositional analysis of steel (or other metals) as early as the 1860's. This isn't the first time you have attempted to put words in my mouth. Are you really that pathetic and desperate to portray yourself as a shotgun barrel expert that you have to tell lies?

Of course, I shouldn't be surprised at that, considering your recent attempt to besmirch the reputation of a dead man, when you once again went off the rails with your total intentional misinterpretation of what Miller (2Piper) had stated about what the Bible told him, quite literally and verbatim, about slavery. I say it was intentional because he spelled it out to you at the time, but you have a problem admitting when you are wrong.

Neither have I attempted to delegitimize the results of any of your precious composition studies. I have merely pointed out that the metallurgical analysis of a single segment of old shotgun barrel only tells us something about that one particular barrel. Unless you can show that your sample is from the same heat as any other barrel or barrels, then your results have no significance and provide no valid information pertaining to the composition of another barrel or barrels. Your assumptions about the number of rough tubes ordered by the General Manager of Hunter Arms, Ithaca, or Lefever are meaningless speculation. It is hard enough to find out which Belgian Barrel makers supplied tubes to various American gun companies, let alone to know if those Belgian barrel makers utilized outworkers or sub-contractors who may have used barrel steel from different sources or different heats. In one of your links, Raimey noted that he is wary of believing the validity of any shotgun barrel stamp, and those Krupp tubes over-stamped with "Armor Steel" ought to confirm that suspicion. I'm sure that by now you are, or should be aware that tube sets normally came wired together in supposedly matched pairs. But in spite of that, we have documented cases of double guns with mixed barrels such as one fluid and one Damascus, or one Damascus and one Twist. So-called Lefever experts are still arguing about whether many guns with late 1890's and early 1900's serial numbers were assembled in Ithaca after the sale of the company in 1916. So why would I sacrifice a segment of one of my Lefever barrels for your junk science?

The situation is far different today in many industries, driven by regulations and litigation. When a gun barrel or under sea oil line ruptures, there are typically computerized tracking records that can trace the origin of that defective product right back to the mill, including the heat number, day, time, metallurgical analysis, and even the employees who produced and inspected it. But you can test old barrels to your heart's content. Maybe you can fool a few more people into believing that you are an expert. You've shown me otherwise. Don't forget my challenge in the second paragraph. You don't want folks to think you are a disingenuous fraud.

keith, try to stay on topic...please...

Ed, is the topic Dave Suponski's Parker barrel study???... or Model 12 Nickel Steel???... or 1937 Winchester Proof Steel??? Or perhaps the subject is the Preacher's penchant for falsehoods and putting words in other folk's mouth.

I'm not really expecting a truthful reply to my challenge. If past history is any indicator of future performance, we'll probably be treated to some scripture verses, nasty comments about acid eating my soul, or pictures of poor Guatemalan kids and dead dogs. But that's OK. I just don't want people thinking we should draw conclusions about shotgun barrel strength or compositions from woefully insufficient samples and testing. Or perhaps the Preacher would ask us to also accept a Covid19 vaccine if it had been tested for safety and efficacy on one monkey. Who knows, that just might work if he posted those results with a bunch of copy and paste vintage advertisements featuring doctors smoking Chesterfields and Lucky Strikes.

yeah, but what about krupp barrels?

My goodness William. You seem to be upset. And typically incoherent when agitated.

I believe I've made my point. Your specialty here (in addition to cowardly bullying, gay implications and slurs, and juvenile cartoons) is twisting and purposefully misconstruing the perspicuous statements of posters on your enemies list.
Maybe you could stop?

Well, this thread stayed nicely on track.

Anyone care for an espresso? I have one of those Krups...

ah, forget it.

NDG

Why should I stop Preacher? You are the one who made yet another false statement in yet another lame attempt to denigrate me. And in your typically cowardly and deceptive manner, are now attempting to once again run away from it.

The little challenge I made to you is still open. You made the accusation. Now show us some of your wonderful Copy-and-paste talents, and back up your statement... then I will publicly apologize and stop.

The ball is in your court, and this is your big chance to prove you aren't the big lying fraud that I believe you are.

Carpe diem!

Colleagues, I wrote once an article on Krupp`s steel and barrels. https://wp.me/p461yQ-2L7 There is a lot of information. Perhaps someone will be interested. I'm not sure about the possibilities of Google Translate.

Robertovich,

Excellent! Thank you.

NDG

Robertovich, google translate seems to work fine for your text. There is a lot of good information there. I think Drew published some steel strength tests some time ago that included Krupp Special Steel.

Sergei Aleksandrovich Buturlin (1872-1938) was a Russian Ornithologist who also published extensively on hunting and sporting arms, including Drobovoe Ruzhże IstrelżBa Iz Nego (The Shotgun and Shooting It) in 1929. No English version of the several editions exists.
Robertovich graciously translated his 1938 edition
http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3524270

The original



I had to screen shot the chart from the Word doc as it didn't format to the Forum from my website



One analysis showed Krupp Spezial to have .61% carbon

what about other german fluid steel shotgun barrel makers? were there any major competitors to krupp around 1890?

why does he ax, you ax?

Ehrhardt, Röchling, Witten Stahl, just to name a few and not to include Austro-Hungarian ones.....


Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Bochumer Verein should be in the mix also. There's one odd one that I just cannot recall at the moment.


Serbus,

Raimey
rse

thanks raimey...

have jp sauer side lock gun # 55xxx, with fluid steel barrels...barrel flats have crown over v proof and crown over s proofs...among other marks...barrels do not have any stamps that i recognise, that suggest who made the tubes...

could these be unmarked krupp barrels from circa 1890? or some other tube maker?...

Looking through my files I found a note from Daryl and Raimey regarding this "Charles Daly Diamond Quality Krupp Drawn Steel Barrels" marked double
https://www.morphyauctions.com/jame...nder-lever-double-barrel-shotguns-59094/

Here is a Prima Flussstahl Krupp-Essen
https://www.gunsinternational.com/g...luss-stahl-16-gauge.cfm?gun_id=101473875

THIS is a bit weird - "Demons of Krupp" by Heinrich Kley; part of paintings commissioned by the Krupp family in 1911
https://www.lwl.org/pressemitteilungen/mitteilung.php?urlIDAlt=1085472720_0





Another by Kley; "Tiegelstahlguss bei Krupp". Note the workers are wearing wooden klompen

Böhler Stahl, 1919

The Krupp stahl marks are typically high on the tubes near the forend hanger, but could easily be worked off and you can't see them. Krupp & Sauer were very chummy so the probability is high that the tube steel is that of Krupp, which either sent bar-stock or allowed their recipe thru license to be mixed near Liège and supplied to the tube makers there. Then the Liège mechanics would transform the bar-stock to >>rough bored barrels<<, which were shipped everywhere.


Serbus,


Raimey
rse

well, if krupp and sauer were so chummy in 1890, it stands to reason that the barrels on 55xxx are krupp steel...

i also have #415xx, with unidentified fluid steel barrels,,,anybody know of an earlier numbered sauer with fluid steel barrels?

You can just about bet your bottom $1 / Five-er that if Sauer peddled it, it wears Krupp steel tubes, converted from bar-stock in Liège and finished @ the Sauer facility.


I have searched and searched & I am looking for an odd German steel that you see once in a blue moon on a Suhl drillling. I can't seem to recall the name but think it may have been Bouildon or Bouldon? Any assistance from any corner of the globe?


Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Raimey,
Try Bohler.
Mike

Thanks Ford but I well know the run of the mill ones & want to keep the search restricted to German steel.


Serbus,

Raimey
rse

>>Baildon - Hubertus<< or >>Baildon - Doublette<< barrel steel. These grades were produced by Baildonhütte in Katowice, Upper Silesia.....<<

Many thanks to älgmule, Ford, Wolfgang & Axel E for bringing the term to the surface.

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

>>Julienhütte und Baildonhütte Special Stahl<<:


https://doublegunshop.com/forums/ub...Words=Baildon&Search=true#Post296187

Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Finally stumbled on some info I had stuck back in a cubby-hole......


Serbus,

Raimey
rse

did krupp make various types of shotgun barrel steel at the same time or was it all pretty much the same formulation...

have always been amused at parker and their various barrel steels...

see new thread...

Ed, the answer to your question is already within this Thread... if you had been paying attention.

Krupp was a large integrated steel maker. They were not a barrel maker. Over the years, barrel makers who wanted to build barrels out of high quality steel chose names like Krupp, Bohler, Whitworth, etc. When they ordered their steel, they could choose from various grades of steel with different analysis, composition, and machining qualities.

When they completed their barrel, they could justifiably stamp it with the name of the steel it contained. But Krupp steel barrels produced by one barrel maker could be quite different than Krupp barrels produced by another barrel maker. They were likely similar, because barrel makers and gun manufacturers desire similar qualities of strength, machinability, corrosion resistance, etc. But without testing them all, there is no way to know.

This is why sending out one or two samples for metallurgical analysis really tells us nothing but vague generalities. And even the steel purchased by the same barrel make at a different point in time could have a different composition. You would have to have access to every purchase order for barrel steel from every barrel maker to know exactly what grade of Krupp steel they used.

Just remember, pure elemental gold or pure elemental iron will always be gold or iron. But steel is a generic term for an alloy, with literally thousands of different formulations. As such, no two heats will ever be perfectly identical in analysis or composition, under normal modern methods of steel manufacturing. Final analysis was even less precise a hundred years ago. But I could probably impress the hell out of you with a bunch of copy-and-paste pictures, advertisements, and random analysis.

well, keith, that clarifies and condenses things for me, thank you...

which brings us back to an old topic..re heat treating of shotgun frame parts, in a vain effort to duplicate long faded factory case colors...

considering that frame metal alloys varied through time and manufacturer, plus original heat treating specs for most gun makers have been lost, one must conclude that those engaging in the black art of shotgun frame parts re heat treating are only guessing as to their practices, based on their experiences, based on trial an error...

least, that is what old ed taught me...

no one will take up the gauntlet? no one?