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.
