TANSTAAFL said:
Lostrifle said:
They could have a competent gunsmith check the pistols out, and settle the question. If the pistols are manure, they haven't lost much. If the pistols are safe for shooting, then they got a real good deal.
The pistols are being sent to me for examination. If I find the guns in doubt as to safety, they will be spiked to make unusable.
If I think they can be safely fired, will be double loaded with powder and two balls, tied off to a creosote bush with a trigger jerk string for final proofing.
As to the Japanese firearms safety issue, I remember when the Arisaka Type 99s were considered unsafe junk. But they have since proven to have been one of the strongest bolt actions of the era ever fielded, due to their technically very superior heat treating methods.
So far as the Arisaka you should understand that there was a substantial (fatal?) difference in the rifles made to be be used in combat and the ones that were made for training AND BLANK FIRING ONLY.
So while the Arisaka service rifle was indeed probably the strongest bolt action made or very close to it, the training rifles that were nearly identical, were not.
So there was a valid reason for some thinking the Arisaka was junk.
If you find an Arisaka with no rifling in the bore DON'T SHOOT IT or rebarrel it for use.
Like some of the MLs out there they were not meant for use with real ammo.
Perhaps some of us here here have gone about this in the wrong way.
The intent was to keep people from being hurt through the use unsafe firearms.
The problem with BP is that even brass will contain the pressure, at least for awhile. Since it is difficult to harm modern steel at BP pressure levels people assume that the guns are safe since they will stand "proof". But unsuitable steels will pass proof and then fail after proof or even after years of use for no apparent reason. Improper construction can also cause problems ranging from fouling traps or other mistakes that can produce chronic miss or hangfires. This is a serious safety concern. Parts can blow out etc etc. The fouling trap can also produce localized corrosion that can eat deeply into the steel in just one spot. While more common with corrosive substitute powders it can occur with BP though it is less likely.
So proving the gun is only valid if the firearm is made of the proper materials and is properly designed and assembled. Proving a gun made improperly or from metals unsuited to the application simply proves it did not fail on that shot.
It is entirely likely that the barrels of the flint guns are made of seamless tubing. At this price level boring solid stock is unlikely. This is "bad", very bad. But for a decorative piece its not a factor.
I have been a gunsmith for most of my life. At one time back in the 1970s it seemed like John Baird of the old "Buckskin Report" was getting a horror story a week, though it was less than that there were still a lot of blowups, grossly negligent construction etc. and this was across the board from American made stuff to the cheap imports.
So when I start to talk about unsafe MLs its not just something that I dreamed up last week. There is DECADES of experience behind my opinions.
I once read a historical account written by a physician circa 1850. A patient of his had suffered from severe headaches for years that started after his rifle burst on firing. Closer examination found that there was a piece of metal at the inside corner of the mans eye. It was a BREECHPLUG lodged in his eye socket. The pointed tang had gone in at the corner of his eye and had not damaged the eye itself. The doc pulled it out with a minor operation and the patient was cured.
This is a synopsis I would have to dig for the documentation. It appeared in an issue of John Baird's magazine.
Frankly you or anyone else getting a breech plug stuck in his forehead is meaningless to me. I don't know you. But its bad for the sport. If your family members live in Cody they could have taken the guns to the Wyoming Armory, across from the rodeo grounds for inspection.
People should at least be informed enough to make a rational decision.
My bottom line? I would not shoot them, there is not a proof anyone could do that would convince me other wise.
I need to get back to the shop, lunch is over.
Dan
