India Barrel Failure

An example of the markings under a barrel.

R.G.M.CO. UDAIPUR. INDIA
B/775. 11.4.11

Much like a serial number when you know what each means it will tell you about the barrel. What is offered is nothing more than "This was a .62 caliber smooth bore flintlock pistol made by R.A. in India"

Logic would say that this is a different and unknown manufacturer. Assuming this failure was legitimate (Im skeptical) to discredit different manufactures is nothing more than slander against those companies. Do what's right, identify the manufacturer and attack them, not the country of origin!

8Ball said:

Pursuing an India company? Good luck...

Click to expand...

Bankrupt absolutly, there is a reason heritage, veteran, loyalist, Middlesex use manufactures they know and trust. There is often a "new" company seeking to compete. They will work to undercut the larger companies. If they aren't making good product they lose their sales and go bankrupt. If the test is legit this is what I believe transpired. Someone bought the cheapest thinking they were all the same and it failed. Now others are using it as a tool to discredit legitimate companies that have been operating for decades.

FlinterNick said:

So there is a difference in how a barrel explodes between smokeless powder and black powder ? Do you blow up barrels often ? If a barrel fails, it’s going to explode, and the gas will go where it is most able to go.

Click to expand...

First , these guns are shipped without touch-holes being drilled. So they are not proofed at all unless the end user sends them off to a proof house or does it themselves. I add that none of the thousands of hobby built guns in America are proofed either.
American barrel makers use the best steel and make barrels at least three times stronger than they need to be.
I also add that many thousands of India made guns are giving good service all over the world.
This is the only known and documented example of one blowing up that I have ever seen and that is with a charge far higher than any reasonable person would ever put in their gum.

I understand the reasoning behind their law to proof the guns. But how do you set a standard for a gun manufactured 300 years ago. Metallurgy was not the same back then. So do they proof at different levels depending on the age of the firearm? Or do they proof it for a standard by which may would have existed for the rifle in that era? I would have a problem with risking damaging my 300 + year old highly valuable gun to prove its safe to use an 80 grain charge in. I totally get proofing new guns coming in to thecountry.

Frontstuffer070 said:

I understand the reasoning behind their law to proof the guns. But how do you set a standard for a gun manufactured 300 years ago. Metallurgy was not the same back then. So do they proof at different levels depending on the age of the firearm? Or do they proof it for a standard by which may would have existed for the rifle in that era? I would have a problem with risking damaging my 300 + year old highly valuable gun to prove its safe to use an 80 grain charge in. I totally get proofing new guns coming in to thecountry.

Click to expand...

The gun is a reproduction / replica, it’s not 300 years old. It was likely manufactured from a company in India in the last 20 or so years or less, or possibly newer.

The name of the company that manufactured it is not known, all that is known is that is from India.

The following is taken from "The British Gunner" by J. Morton Spearman. The first edition appeared in 1828 and contained the following information about powder charges for flintlocks:

Musket

Proof charge: 23.334 drams (642 grains)
Service charge: 6 drams (165 grains)
Exercise charge (for blanks): 5 drams (138 grains)

Carbine (Rifle Bore)

Proof charge: 15 drams (413 grains)
Service charge: 4 drams (110 grains)
Exercise charge: 4 drams (110 grains)

Carbine (Musket Bore)

Service charge: 5.5 drams (151 grains)
Exercise charge: 4.5 drams (124 grains)

Spearman noted:

"The service charges given in this table, although established by authority, are too great, and might be reduced by about one-fourth. They have not been altered since 1775, while the strength of the powder has been increased in nearly a two-fold ratio since that period."

In a later edition of this book, the charge for the percussion muskets is confirmed:

"The charges established in 1838, for the new pattern arms....are for the musquet 4.5 drams (124 grains).

Hold my beer...

FlinterNick said:

The gun is a reproduction / replica, it’s not 300 years old. It was likely manufactured from a company in India in the last 20 or so years or less, or possibly newer.

The name of the company that manufactured it is not known, all that is known is that is from India.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the 18th Century Jager being proofed in the Video. But 8ball's post cleared up my question. Seems the standard has been around since then

cyten said:

HERE is a follow up he did on the barrel, interview with the CIP proofhouse: https://capandball.com/how-the-indi...gY1bFrQv6dMxKUc3k8_aem_ZmFrZWR1bW15MTZieXRlcw

if you're too lazy to read the whole interview, the CIP said of this particular barrel:

This was a .62 caliber smooth bore flintlock pistol made by R.A. in India, probably Daipur. There is no available information on who is “R.A”, whether it is a company, an individual. The standard caliber and bore-specific proofing charge was used set by the technical annex of the C.I.P. regulations for proofing black powder arms: 10 g (154 grain) of 4Fg Swiss No. 1. black powder and 55 g (849 grain) of lead shot. Powder was topped with 20 mm felt wad, shot was held in place with 10 mm felt wad. This proof charge would have allowed a maximum service charge of 5 g (77 grain) black powder and 25 g (385 grain) projectile. The pistol barrel burst upon the first proofing shot, therefore it was rejected of course.

Click to expand...

Despite the attitude in your first line you gave very good information on what was going on and you also perhaps inadvertently brought something else to light. The maker was identified at least to a point. Most of the comments made by folks on this topic smear all Indian made arms. Not all are going to be bad - the same can be said that there are crappy Italian, Belgian, Spanish and even US made arms. I would want to have no part of any barrel made by R.A. At the same point I have purchased new in the past a rifle made by a renowned Italian maker that was unsafe. Does that make everyone they make unsafe or every arm made in Italy unsafe? Absolutely not I am sure it was an aberration. Objectivity needs to be what matters in these posts. You gave objective information as to the test. Thank You.

cebusey said:

Despite the attitude in your first line you gave very good information on what was going on and you also perhaps inadvertently brought something else to light. The maker was identified at least to a point. Most of the comments made by folks on this topic smear all Indian made arms. Not all are going to be bad - the same can be said that there are crappy Italian, Belgian, Spanish and even US made arms. I would want to have no part of any barrel made by R.A. At the same point I have purchased new in the past a rifle made by a renowned Italian maker that was unsafe. Does that make everyone they make unsafe or every arm made in Italy unsafe? Absolutely not I am sure it was an aberration. Objectivity needs to be what matters in these posts. You gave objective information as to the test. Thank You.

Click to expand...

The proof test reinforces an opinion of quality thats all. In most cases an Indian made arm will be safe to shoot, most of what negatively occurs surrounding Indian made arms is quality control issues . The distributors could do a much better job on what they sell to people, thats always been my opinion. People are free to purchase and shoot what ever gun they desire to. If someone were to approach me about purchasing an Indian made arm I would simply offer my opinion and direct them to the most trusted Indian gun dealer that i believe stands behind what they sell. There are many people on here that take criticism of Indian made arms very personal and I understand this as they are some how personally vested in the Indian black powder arms market.

So according to an above post the very same person(s) that produces them does not recommend them,
Well Fellas that s god enough for me....

FlinterNick said:

I don’t know about bus’s but here is how they answered a question about their barrels at the Rajahstan Armory, in the video you can see that the barrels are being forged over a mandrel. I would hesitate to say if these are what military heritage calls carbon steel cold rolled tubing for their barrels, they’re not correct. Hammering out a barrel over a mandrel can be done with iron or wrought but i have my doubts about doing it with steel alloys.

Click to expand...

Never heard of Roto-Forged barrels then eh?

I know that Loyalist arms includes with their new muskets a fuse and a ball with walk through instruction for how to proof the barrel by yourself... For the other businesses I don't know.

Perhaps Herr Schrapnel got his idea from an Indian Gun he owned?

8Ball said:

The following is taken from "The British Gunner" by J. Morton Spearman. The first edition appeared in 1828 and contained the following information about powder charges for flintlocks:

Click to expand...

I think this relates to Ordnance Proofs.

The Government Act of 1813 that established the Birmingham Proof House includes a scale of charges to be used for the proof of barrels. This includes the Gauge (No. of Balls to a lb) and the Weight of Powder for Proof. It is this and subsequent Acts that cover the commercial market.

David

sussexmuzllodr said:

Perhaps Herr Schrapnel got his idea from an Indian Gun he owned?

Click to expand...

Back in 1784, Lt Henry Shrapnel, an officer in King George III's Royal Artillery, came up with his eponymously-named exploding cannon shell, designed to burst over the heads of the foe.

No Germans were harmed in the production of this short description of his life and career in the Army of George III and IV.

Henry Shrapnel was born at Midway Manor in Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire, England, the ninth child of Zachariah Shrapnel and his wife Lydia.

In 1784, while a lieutenant in the Royal Artillery, he perfected, with his own resources, an invention of what he called "spherical case" ammunition: a hollow cannonball filled with lead shot that burst in mid-air. He successfully demonstrated this in 1787 at Gibraltar. He intended the device as an anti-personnel weapon.

In 1803, the British Army adopted a similar but elongated explosive shell which immediately acquired the inventor's name. It has lent the term "shrapnel" to fragmentation from artillery shells and fragmentation in general ever since, long after it was replaced by high-explosive rounds. Until the end of World War I, the shells were still manufactured according to his original principles.

Shrapnel served in Flanders, where he was wounded in 1793. He was promoted to major on 1 November 1803 after eight years as a captain. After his invention's success in battle at Fort Nieuw-Amsterdam, Surinam, on 30 April 1804, Shrapnel was promoted to lieutenant colonel on 20 July 1804, less than nine months later.

In 1814, the British Government recognized Shrapnel's contribution by awarding him £1,200 (equivalent to £106,023 in 2021) a year for life. Bureaucracy, however, prevented him from receiving the full benefit of this award. He was appointed to the office of Colonel-Commandant, Royal Artillery, on 6 March 1827. He rose to the rank of lieutenant general on 10 January 1837.

Shrapnel lived at Peartree House, near Peartree Green, Southampton, from about 1835 until his death.

Johnn Davis said:

First , these guns are shipped without touch-holes being drilled. So they are not proofed at all unless the end user sends them off to a proof house or does it themselves. I add that none of the thousands of hobby built guns in America are proofed either.

Click to expand...

Actually, ALL of the ones that I purchased came with the touch hole drilled and sold with the intent to be live fired.

Johnn Davis said:

American barrel makers use the best steel and make barrels at least three times stronger than they need to be.

Click to expand...

Some of the barrel makers in the past used 12L14 steel rod stock, and there is a debate whether that is a proper barrel steel for black powder.

Johnn Davis said:

This is the only known and documented example of one blowing up that I have ever seen and that is with a charge far higher than any reasonable person would ever put in their gum.

Click to expand...

A musket barrel split about 10 years ago, and was found to have been user error, not due to the steel.

Frontstuffer070 said:

I understand the reasoning behind their law to proof the guns. But how do you set a standard for a gun manufactured 300 years ago. Metallurgy was not the same back then. So do they proof at different levels depending on the age of the firearm? Or do they proof it for a standard by which may would have existed for the rifle in that era? I would have a problem with risking damaging my 300 + year old highly valuable gun to prove its safe to use an 80 grain charge in. I totally get proofing new guns coming in to thecountry.

Click to expand...

So each proofing house when it comes to black powder, sets its own standard. They vary greatly. Proof only really counts when the barrel leaves the proofing house. As you pointed out, after several hundred years, has the barrel been maintained or has it been compromised by corrosion. The metal shouldn't atrophy over time if properly maintained. HOWEVER, if you want it checked, yes it will go through the same proofing of a black powder barrel that a brand new barrel for black powder would undergo.

Commodore Swab said:

An example of the markings under a barrel.

R.G.M.CO. UDAIPUR. INDIA
B/775. 11.4.11

Much like a serial number when you know what each means it will tell you about the barrel. What is offered is nothing more than "This was a .62 caliber smooth bore flintlock pistol made by R.A. in India"

Click to expand...

And the date of manufacture was 11 April, 2011. (11.4.11)

LD

Loyalist Dave said:

And the date of manufacture was 11 April, 2011. (11.4.11)

LD

Click to expand...

Actually while the numbers appear to be a date they aren't. It is a different numbering system. I want to say it identifies the shop, build, year or something along those lines. Comparable to how a tire might have a date stamp of 3622 which identifies it as being made in the 36th week of 2022.

FlinterNick said:

Rigged ? The article suggestions the procedure was done very professionally.

Click to expand...

Most rigging is done by professionals!

8Ball said:

I know that Loyalist arms includes with their new muskets a fuse and a ball with walk through instruction for how to proof the barrel by yourself... For the other businesses I don't know.

Click to expand...

Loyalist Dave said:

Actually, ALL of the ones that I purchased came with the touch hole drilled and sold with the intent to be live fired.

Some of the barrel makers in the past used 12L14 steel rod stock, and there is a debate whether that is a proper barrel steel for black powder.

A musket barrel split about 10 years ago, and was found to have been user error, not due to the steel.



So each proofing house when it comes to black powder, sets its own standard. They vary greatly. Proof only really counts when the barrel leaves the proofing house. As you pointed out, after several hundred years, has the barrel been maintained or has it been compromised by corrosion. The metal shouldn't atrophy over time if properly maintained. HOWEVER, if you want it checked, yes it will go through the same proofing of a black powder barrel that a brand new barrel for black powder would undergo.


And the date of manufacture was 11 April, 2011. (11.4.11)

LD

Click to expand...

Great info Dave

Commodore Swab said:

FYI india barrels are stamped on the bottom hidden in the stock. These stamping will identify the manufacturer ect.

Click to expand...

Do you have a listing of these companies and their marks?