January
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 223 guests, and 8 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics35,087
Posts495,071
Members13,948
Most Online462
Aug 5th, 2016
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Drew;
I Sure hope someone has a chunk of Win Stainless to send you. I have "EXTREME doubt it will prove to be a 300 series stainless, which of course includes 18-8. Here is a link to a good treatise on 18-8 SST.
https://www.fastenersolutions.com/materials-coatings/18-8-stainless-steel/


Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,102
Likes: 3
Sidelock
***
OP Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,102
Likes: 3
As said, despite all the print and internet verbiage, I've found no documentation or someone willing to guess the composition of Winchester Stainless Steel.
The options:
Krupp's austentic stainless developed about 1912 with .04% carbon, 16.5-18% Cr, 10-13% Ni. 316 also has 2-2.5% Mo
Haynes' 1919 patent martensitic 420 with 12-14% Cr and C < .15%. It is very hard at Brinell 241 - much harder that 4340 at 217.
Hatfield's "18/8" was patented in 1924.

Possibly contributors could step up and suggest what the steel WAS rather than what it was NOT? What other options were there in 1926 when Winchester Stainless Steel was introduced?

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,754
Likes: 8
SKB Offline
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,754
Likes: 8
Drew,
You may want to contact Mike Hunter who is a board member and a Winchester restoration expert. I believe Mike has had some actions analyzed for steel composition and he may well have some information on barrel composition. Mike is a very stringent researcher and an excellent craftsman as well.
Steve


http://www.bertramandco.com/

ACGG Professional metalsmith, firearms import services.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,102
Likes: 3
Sidelock
***
OP Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,102
Likes: 3
Thanks Steve. I sent him an email with a link to this thread.
Here's a post by Mike in 2015
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/general-discussions-questions/receiver-steel/
"Winchester’s Nickle Steel had 3 1/2 % nickel and .30%-.40% carbon. I know that Winchester sourced this steel from the Midvale and Crucible Steel Companies."
He states that Proof Steel was 4140. No mention of Stainless.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,102
Likes: 3
Sidelock
***
OP Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,102
Likes: 3
NOT a fine double, but for the few still interested, the Winchester Model 37 barrel was marked "Steelbilt". According to Ron Stadt's Winchester Shotguns and Shotshells the Model 37 series was identified as "Steelbilt" simply because "This new Winchester is made with steel in all metal parts...." by deep draw steel forming. As opposed to a malleable iron frame? Ah marketing wink



I have not found any statements as to the composition of the barrel steel.

A 1937 ad
https://books.google.com/books?id=7aoTAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA160&lpg

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 10,372
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 10,372
Originally Posted By: Drew Hause


Possibly contributors could step up and suggest what the steel WAS rather than what it was NOT? What other options were there in 1926 when Winchester Stainless Steel was introduced?


I'm actually more interested in which Winchester DOUBLE BARREL shotguns ever had stainless steel barrels? I have never seen a Model 21 or Model 24 with stainless steel barrels. Were any ever made?

I can't understand why Miller's comment pertaining to the near certainty that 304 stainless was not used presents a problem. There has been a lot of sheer conjecture and guessing about barrel composition in this thread, and the other threads about Marlin or Remington barrel steels.

For example, the frequent reference to Bessemer steels covers a vast amount of ground. First off, it is pretty unlikely that any of our American gunmakers utilized barrel steel from actual steel mills in England that were operated by Henry Bessemer. The majority would most likely have been used in England.

Most of what is referred to as "Bessemer Steel" is steel that was produced under license by dozens of mills that paid for the rights to use the Bessemer Converter Process to make steel. Early Bessemer process steel was often junk, and Henry Bessemer was forced to pay back a lot of money to mills that weren't able to produce a quality product using his patented methods. Bessemer himself tried thousands of different recipes and methods to try to perfect his steel, without much success. And it was Robert Forester Mushet who also tried thousands of different experiments who finally perfected the Bessemer process, but ended up relatively poor after losing the patent rights.

And there have been literally hundreds of thousands of heats produced over the years that would have a wide range of metallurgical compositions. Bessemer Converters were fast, but did not permit nearly as much time for testing as later processes such as the Open Hearth. Metallurgical testing also was not nearly as precise, cheap, and easy as it is today either. Nowadays, the composition of a heat from an electric arc furnace is even modified or adjusted after it is removed from the furnace, by LMF refining. Even the equipment used to CNC mill test samples for exact precise cross sectional area for tensile strength testing was not available 100 years ago. There has been much discussion about the steel that was used in the hull of the Titanic that caused the iceberg to break it instead of merely bending and deflecting. When you, or a ship-maker, or a gun manufacturer buys steel from a supplier, you don't necessarily get exactly what you order. This is one reason that European gun makers are required under law to do Proof Testing of finished and semi-finished barrels. This was even tougher back when hundreds of mills were competing using slightly different processes, equipment, and alloy mixtures. Minor differences such as a different type of coal used to make coke could change the impurities content and analysis of the steel. And this is why Whitworth steel barrels got such a good reputation... because they exclusively used their own product made by their own people.

I'm sure Miller could attest to the fact that two or more samples of the supposedly same steel could have a range of percentages of ingredients, and a range of properties. I'm certain he could verify that different batches of steel, say 4140 for example, can and do have slightly different hardness and machining qualities when it comes to cutting, milling, drilling, and threading. Variations can occur later during rolling, annealing, etc. Because of this, a single sample of steel taken from a barrel of a 1930's Model 12 may not tell us much at all about the steel used in millions of other Winchesters made over decades of production.

It's a fascinating subject going back to a time when steel was more valuable than gold, but I'm afraid that generalizations based upon analysis of a few samples of barrel steel are never going to be definitive.


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,102
Likes: 3
Sidelock
***
OP Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,102
Likes: 3
The AISI/SAE standards and nomenclature were not developed until the 30s and 40s; long after these barrel steels were manufactured. This is a helpful summary
https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6151
The standards provide a range within which the AISI number may be assigned.
AISI 1040 can have carbon .37-.44% and manganese .60-.90%
That allows for variations in steel batches.
The metallurgists at METL labeled MOST of the samples I submitted as "non-standard" ie. one chemical was out-of-range or the composition just did not fit. METL’s analysis of a 1898 Hunter Arms Armor sample: “The measured results are comparable to 1211 rephosphorized and resulfurized low alloy steel (UNS G12110) as well as 1045 plain carbon steel (UNS G10450).”
Said another way is 1045 with too much phosphorus and sulfur, which make machining easier but lowers ductility and impact resistance; and other stuff
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/21-chemical-elements-effects-steel-mechanical-properties-jeremy-he

A 1908 Hunter Arms Armor is non-standard AISI 1018 with slightly high phosphorus and sulphur, and a low concentration of nickel.

A c. 1925 Crescent Fire Arms “Genuine Armory Steel” non-standard (high phosphorus) Alloy AISI 1040 Carbon Steel with a low concentration of nickel.

Bottom line: We can KNOW what some barrel steels were because the makers said so, or because samples have been analyzed. It is not unreasonable to then assign AISI numbers for comparison, and because this happens to be of interest. And AISI 1020 steel made in 1900 is AISI steel made in 2020.

I think Dave Suponski's analysis of Parker steels is most interesting.
Titanic, post-WWI Vulcan, and Trojan were essentially the same; AISI 1030 and 1035 Medium Carbon steels. Titanic did have low levels of both nickel and chromium compared to the others, but it would not be an “alloy steel”. "Parker Steel" turned out (surprise) to be Decarbonized Steel, as was "Remington Steel", according to Remington.
More on Bessemer process/Decarbonized Steel to follow.

SO (again) other opinions as to what Winchester Nickel Steel and Stainless Steel were are most welcome.
I think Mike Hunters statement regarding the composition of Nickel Steel (probably 2330) and Proof Steel (4140) are definitive. I've not yet heard back from him.

And I at least have learned something from this exercise.
I'd also like to understand why "the near certainty that 304 stainless was not used" is nearly certain? What were the other stainless steel options c. 1926?
Krupp's austentic stainless developed about 1912 with .04% carbon, 16.5-18% Cr, 10-13% Ni?
Krupp “Nirosta” 1912 patent NIchtROstender STAhl 21% Chromium / 7% Nickel stainless steel introduced in 1913?
Bohler “Antinit” Rostfrei Laufstahl chrome-molybdenum-vanadium introduced 1912?
Haynes' 1919 patent martensitic 420?


Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 10,372
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 10,372
Originally Posted By: Drew Hause


And I at least have learned something from this exercise.
I'd also like to understand why "the near certainty that 304 stainless was not used" is nearly certain?



Geez Drew, you don't have to act so butt-hurt about the comments Miller and I posted here in your latest copy-and-paste "research".

Miller explained the very good reasons he felt that 304 stainless would not have been used for producing gun barrels... from the standpoint of a guy who spent a lifetime as a Machinist, cutting, drilling, threading, tapping, and milling various grades of steel and other metals. If you have something from your own work as either a Machinist or Metallurgist to counter that, please let us know.

You sure seem very sensitive and thin-skinned when anyone comments on any errors you make... and you do make a lot. For instance, you stated above that Parker Titanic Steel would not be an "alloy steel". But strictly speaking, every steel is an alloy.

My own research into steels isn't meant to either discredit you, or to prop myself up as some self-styled Double Gun Barrel Expert. I worked in a large integrated steel mill for a time after college. I thought I was unfortunate that due to my lack of seniority, I frequently got "bumped" to every department in the mill, and sometimes even got "bumped" from my electrician apprentice job, and had to work various production jobs. But looking back, I was lucky. Unlike most people who work in steel mills, I got to see every part of the operation from loading iron ore, coke, and limestone into Blast Furnaces, to converting iron to steel by various processes, to blooming, to hot and cold rolling, to pickling, annealing, finishing and shipping. Analysis was done at every step, and met lab analysis followed the product from melting right to the customer. I vividly remember poking a long fire retardant cardboard tube down into molten steel in a 260 ton electric furnace to get a sample to send to the met lab for analysis. I thought my face was going to melt as the Melter yelled at me to get the tube down deeper into the molten steel. The sample was sent over 1/3 of a mile to the met lab, in a tube that was a much longer version of what is used to send your deposit at a drive-through bank. Analysis was done, and the met lab called the Melter to instruct him to add more nickel, etc. and to blow oxygen for a given time to burn off excess carbon. So then I was privileged to poke a long oxygen lance into the molten bath as oxygen was blown in. This was not the most fun thing I have ever done, and it never gets to be mundane or routine. The noise, fire, sparks, and smoke are like being in the middle of a fireworks display. You wear "Woolies"... thick wool pants and coat while you do this work. The idea is that wool smolders when molten steel is splashed onto it, rather than burning straight through. While I was there, we had five guys killed in one year. Steel mills are hot, dirty, and dangerous... except in the winter when you can add brutally cold to the mix. The first time I got a "welders flash" wasn't from welding. It was from intently watching iron being tapped fresh from two large blast furnaces all day long. I quickly learned why the Melters and Furnace Operators all wore those little blue UV filter glasses over their safety glasses. I spent three cold winter months working in the Blast Furnace dept. It was common to have your sweaty clothing turn stiff when it froze between heats. There are no walls on the cast house. Several times that winter, I had someone come over and slap me on the back because I was on fire and didn't know it. No pictures of a Blast Furnace can do it justice. One night, I was told to go to the pouring platform at the Electric Furnace and stand behind a large I-beam column in case I was needed. They were pouring cap heats, a process to de-gas the molten steel, and I was told that sometimes they blew up, and if someone got f**ked up, I was to take their place. My early steel experience was up close and personal, not copy-and-paste.

Then, a couple years ago, I decided to revisit some old deer hunting spots because the places I was hunting were becoming unproductive. I remembered that I had killed my first buck with a flintlock off the top of an old stone furnace I literally stumbled into in the early morning darkness. I managed to climb on top of the 30 foot high ruins, and shot my buck later that morning. When I told a friend who hunted there in the past, he informed me that the furnace was an old brick oven, according to locals. Here's a pic of Webster Furnace where I shot my first buck with a flintlock.



As I looked at this area again to see if I could determine whether it was still open to hunting, I learned that the furnace was actually an old cut stone cold blast furnace that was built in 1837-38. The water wheel that drove the bellows, and the wooden casting shed, and all other buildings and structures were long gone. These furnaces typically ran until all the wood for miles around was cut down and consumed after being converted to charcoal. Trying to learn the history of this furnace led me down a long rathole of the history of early iron making in my state, and the U.S. Then I looked back earlier to Europe, India, and other places where iron ore was smelted. I also learned that much of the early terminology has carried over to the present day, and that the basic chemistry is much the same as when steel was first produced in very small quantities and was more valuable than gold.

This took me down the path of learning much more about cold blast furnaces, early hot blast furnaces, and many of the various processes and furnaces for conversion of iron to steel, including the Bessemer Process. Cursory study will show that trying to lump all Bessemer and Bessemer Process steels into one neat little box is just silly. The range of characteristics and quality is huge. A couple samples sent to a met lab will not tell the story. Ten thousand samples might be a good place to start.

I'm not going to copy-and-paste all of that here though, to try to prop myself up as some expert. As much as I've learned and seen and experienced, I am nowhere near an expert, and neither are you... not even close. And I could tell you that if you can't take a little criticism, you wouldn't last two days in a mill where they make steel.


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,102
Likes: 3
Sidelock
***
OP Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,102
Likes: 3
The topic of the thread is Winchester Shotgun Barrel Steels William. The thread is factual and well researched, with obvious gaps in our knowledge; knowledge unrelated to having worked in a steel mill.
So do you have an opinion as to the composition of Winchester Nickel Steel? Winchester Stainless Steel? The Stainless Steels available in 1926? Or is this of no interest to you?
BTW: Researcher has documented that the $750 Remington Special Hammerless Model of 1894 was offered with barrels of Nickel Steel. Interested now?

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 10,372
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 10,372
Originally Posted By: Drew Hause

So do you have an opinion as to the composition of Winchester Nickel Steel? Winchester Stainless Steel? The Stainless Steels available in 1926? Or is this of no interest to you?
BTW: Researcher has documented that the $750 Remington Special Hammerless Model of 1894 was offered with barrels of Nickel Steel. Interested now?


So get some sample of Winchester guns that have barrels made of those steels, and send them out to have them analyzed. Then you will know the composition analysis of those particular barrels, and little more.

When steel mills make a new heat of steel to fill orders, they do not simply go from a known recipe because they have been making the same alloy for years. They test each and every heat because they know there are too many variables to simply rely on a test that was done at a different point in time. The likelihood of any two batches or heats being perfectly identical are virtually impossible.

Will reports of those compositions do us here any good anyway? Why, during your last barrel blow-up analysis, you first reported ferrous contamination in the area of the rupture, that later magically transformed into manganese sulfide inclusions, or vice versa. I'm still trying to figure that one out. I learned a lot from your pompous bloviating, but it wasn't anything about steel or the root cause of the rupture.

Go a step further and study the attributes of those various alloys for barrels, and you may learn why Winchester engineers specified those steels. And you may also learn why some of the guns with stainless barrels are quite rare and collectible to Winchester collectors... because they didn't sell very well.

And we're still waiting for info on those Winchester double shotguns that had stainless tubes.

Originally Posted By: Drew Hause
The topic of the thread is Winchester Shotgun Barrel Steels William.


You seem rather incensed that I have strayed off the topic of Winchester Shotgun Barrels Steels preacher. So that begs the question of why you brought Crescent steels, Hunter Arms, and Parker Titanic steels, Remington 870 and Benelli replacement barrels, and info from the Beretta website into your sacred Winchester ground??? Do you have a problem with your bro Larry Clown bringing a Remington hammergun into your precious thread? And what does a $750 Remington 1894 Special Hammerless have to do with Winchester Shotgun Barrel Steels anyway??? It appears that you aren't being truthful when you act upset about non-Winchester information here. No surprise there preacher.

BTW, I don't have a clue what you are trying to convey when you say Researcher "has documented that the $750 Remington Special Hammerless Model of 1894 was offered with barrels of Nickel Steel." Certainly, then as now, a correct nickel steel alloy would be somewhat stronger, more corrosion resistant, and more expensive than a plain low carbon steel barrel. What a revelation! Do you know the meaning of BFD?

I don't believe this is indicative that you have unearthed the Holy Grail or finally discovered a key to the Grand Unification Theory. I do believe that you have more self-importance than you have actual knowledge about steel though. And a fragile ego too... a very fragile ego. But with enough copy-and-pasting, you have managed to fool a number of people. Carry on Preacher.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLToWNAaEF8


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2019 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u9 Page Time: 0.041s Queries: 34 (0.016s) Memory: 0.8811 MB (Peak: 1.8992 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2021-01-19 08:08:15 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS