Douglas XX Follow Up

[quillgordo]

So, due to some comments about the douglas barrels having some failures, I pose this question to you knowledgeable gents.
should I go with this barrel, since it is a bit more than my alternative which is W.E.Rayl barrel? I can save at least a couple hundred dollars.
And what twist rate do you recommend for my 45 cal?

Thanks

 

[Rifleman1776]

I simply do not believe the failure stories. Never have I seen published a documented incident with Douglas barrels. I have seen incidents where unsafe loading (modern smokeless powder, etc.) was responsible.
Not jokin' this time. If you don't want the barrel send to me. I'll be happy to pay shipping.

 

[ohio ramrod]

Don't listen to rileman. They are very dangerous and the only safe thing you can do with it is to securely package it and ship it to me for safe disposal! :rotf: :rotf:

 

[smokeum54]

i wouldnt be worried at all about it. as for the twist, i dont have a .45 with a 48 twist but i have a number of .50, .54. and .58 with that twist and with the right load they are very accurate.

 

[Dphar]

They are, according to a long time major American custom barrel maker a friend had a conversation with recently, 12L14 and some DID fail. The one I SAW in a friends shop in 1969 failed with 60 gr of FFF and a PRB. Split up the top flat from the face of the breech to nearly the rear sight.
Roy Keeler wrote up an account of a failure in Muzzle Blasts about this time and while he was a supplier at the time Douglas cut him off and he had to order barrels through a third party, I am told.

Rayle does not use leaded screw stock.
I prefer Green Mountain if I can get the size I need. These are really good barrels, acceptable material and extremely accurate. I would not shoot a 3/4" 45 cal Douglas given the steel used.

I have a custom rifle with a Douglas. I don't use it much and have a GM barrel in the shop I intend to replace it with.
I simply believe that people should be able to make informed decisions. There is no reason for a modern steel barrel to fail a BP pressure levels if its made from the proper alloy. There really is no combination that will split a GB quality barrel of 1137 or 4150 without significant deformation before the split. They may bulge but splitting with no significant deformation means something is fundamentally wrong.
For example.
I used to have a 1942 Garand barrel that was fired with an obstruction. It only bulged. And this was about 4" from the muzzle where the barrel is very thin and the M2 ball was doing about 2700.

Dan

 

[Dean2]

So you are saying we have one documented failure from over 40 years ago, and the claim is still that Douglas Barrels are substandard. I have a Douglas barrel on my 32. I have only fired about 50 rounds out of it so far, but I know the previous builder and owner shot thousands of rounds from it. The gun was built in the 80s and to date, no issues and so far pretty accurate, though I am still working up a patch, ball, load combo.

I do not profess to be any kind of an expert on muzzle loaders, but I do know guns very well. I see these kinds of posts on the BR sites I frequent and they too are usually one ofs, and many of them go back 40 years. The steel of today is WAY better than the steel of even ten years ago. We need to focus on current information, unless you happen to be buying a 40 year old Douglas Barrel.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Dan, I can't dispute what you saw. But, the wording of your post suggests no other makes of ml barrels ever fail. There may have been other factors at work that destroyed the barrel you describe.
There is little country store in Arkansas near an area I used to hunt. On the wall is a display of modern guns with barrels split in a variety of failures.
We play with things that go bang. Risk is inherent. Ropes break for mountain climbers. Engines stop for pilots, etc.
My Douglas barreled guns have been fired many thousands of rounds. Didn't Douglas supply TC with barrels for their 'hawken' for a long time? I have to wonder how many thousands, or tens of thousands of those barrels have been used without failing.
I would use a Douglas barrel today if given the opportunity. This is not a put-down of GM, or any other make. I would happily use a GM.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

............I do not profess to be any kind of an expert on muzzle loaders, but I do know guns very well. I see these kinds of posts on the BR sites I frequent and they too are usually one ofs, and many of them go back 40 years. The steel of today is WAY better than the steel of even ten years ago. We need to focus on current information, unless you happen to be buying a 40 year old Douglas Barrel.

Use "current information"? Well, since Douglas hasn't made ML barrels for more than 30 years it will be hard to do what you ask. Seems Douglas had problems (more than one, BTW) and stopped making them a long time ago. The 40 year old Douglas barrels are about all that are available and you have to wonder why no one has used them in all of that time.....

 

[Dean2]

Okay then. Douglas quit making ML barrels because they were sued, successfully by some idiot that blew one up using smokeless powder. I also know you can split pretty much any ML barrel if you leave a good air gap over a stout powder charge. That is not a defect in the supplied barrel.

Douglas has continued to make smokeless barrels ever since, and still sell a ton of them for everything from hunting rifles to BR guns. My favourite hunting rifle is a 5lb Melvin forbes built Ultra Light Arms model 20 in 308 Win. He uses Douglas barrels exclusively becuase he finds them much more likely to shoot well with the very thin barrels he mounts. He will do other barrels if asked but he tries hard to talk you out of it.

The one he built for me will push a 130 grain Barnes at 3150 FPS, with no signs of excess pressure at all. It will also put 5 quick rounds in just over an inch, at 300 yards, and doesn't walk as it gets hot. Barrel nad bedding work flawlessly together.

I have had 4 Douglas CF barrels, all have been great and I now have one ML with a Douglas barrel.
Douglas barrels have been winning major competitions for over 50 years and continue to do so. I repeat that I would have no hesitation in using a Douglas barrel, and I add of whatever vintage. The one on my flinter is 27 years old and has stood up great, and still has very good accurracy. I would buy another ML gun with a Douglas barrel and if I could find one, I would have a gun built with one too. That said, if you aren't comfortable using them, by all means don't. There are lots of other choices.

 

[reddog97]

The flinter I have was made in 1974. It has a 42inch swamped Douglas XX barrel in .45 caliber. The original owner shot it in matches when he was a member of The Kentucky Corps of Longriflemen. It's still shoots true today.'nuff said about this Douglas barrel.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Okay then. Douglas quit making ML barrels because they were sued, successfully by some idiot that blew one up using smokeless powder. I also know you can split pretty much any ML barrel if you leave a good air gap over a stout powder charge. That is not a defect in the supplied barrel.

I would have to ask "do you have documentation that the Douglas barrel was blown with smokeless powder are are you just defending a maker who's barrels you like"?
The remainder of your post deals with centerfire smokeless powder barrels which are made with a different steel. No one disputed that Douglas barrels are well bored and rifled. The issue was with the steel used in their muzzleloading barrels.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Well said Coyote Joe.