• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

I bought an original SXS

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have several original rifles and shotguns that are my go to guns for shooting. I am not afraid to use them and simply try to keep in mind that they are 170 years old or so. It is not possible to know what kind of loads that they have seen and we know that the materials and procedures used to make them are not the same as it is today.

I am not an engineer or a metallurgist, however In my professional life I have been very much involved with research on metal fatigue as it relates hazardous materials cargo tanks. I have investigated quite a few catastrophic tank failures.

Load cycles and fatigue on metal is not a new or unknown subject. The key is not subjecting the metal to a yield stress that will cause damage that might lead to a future failure.

The fact that the barrels held with a large load does not guarantee that they will hold a second time with that load or even a reduced load. The only thing it proves is that it held that time.

What I have learned in the past 33 years is that metal cracks. Not all cracks are bad cracks, depends on their orientation and which way they are growing. One of the metallurgist from the University I have worked with on the investigations and research likes to state that there is not a air plane flying that does not have cracks in it. Metal cracks.

While I have never been involved with research on gun barrels they are still metal cylinders and are also subject to stresses. I also believe that especially on older barrels that they have a high likelihood of having cracks in them. Again that does not mean that they are all bad cracks.

I have seen several older cargo tanks that are 50 years old and still in service with over 80 cracks on the inside of the tank. These cracks had simply not grown to the outside of the tank yet causing a failure.

We dont know what and if any cracks were already in the barrels and we dont know if these were caused to grow or if new cracks were created by using a heavy load.

25 years ago I would strap down a set of barrels with a stout load and touch it off to see if they held and all of them did. Today I simply do a good inspection of the barrel/s and if it appears to be sound I simply use it with what I consider reasonable loads and I dont worry about it.

Enjoy your new toy! If you are like most of us, you will start looking for the next one soon. IMO there is nothing like using a old gun like these. I often wonder if the craftsmen that built them ever thought that they would be used in the United States 150 years latter to shoot pheasants, deer, bears etc.

Pete S.
 
I have several original rifles and shotguns that are my go to guns for shooting. I am not afraid to use them and simply try to keep in mind that they are 170 years old or so. It is not possible to know what kind of loads that they have seen and we know that the materials and procedures used to make them are not the same as it is today.

I am not an engineer or a metallurgist, however In my professional life I have been very much involved with research on metal fatigue as it relates hazardous materials cargo tanks. I have investigated quite a few catastrophic tank failures.

Load cycles and fatigue on metal is not a new or unknown subject. The key is not subjecting the metal to a yield stress that will cause damage that might lead to a future failure.

The fact that the barrels held with a large load does not guarantee that they will hold a second time with that load or even a reduced load. The only thing it proves is that it held that time.

What I have learned in the past 33 years is that metal cracks. Not all cracks are bad cracks, depends on their orientation and which way they are growing. One of the metallurgist from the University I have worked with on the investigations and research likes to state that there is not a air plane flying that does not have cracks in it. Metal cracks.

While I have never been involved with research on gun barrels they are still metal cylinders and are also subject to stresses. I also believe that especially on older barrels that they have a high likelihood of having cracks in them. Again that does not mean that they are all bad cracks.

I have seen several older cargo tanks that are 50 years old and still in service with over 80 cracks on the inside of the tank. These cracks had simply not grown to the outside of the tank yet causing a failure.

We dont know what and if any cracks were already in the barrels and we dont know if these were caused to grow or if new cracks were created by using a heavy load.

25 years ago I would strap down a set of barrels with a stout load and touch it off to see if they held and all of them did. Today I simply do a good inspection of the barrel/s and if it appears to be sound I simply use it with what I consider reasonable loads and I dont worry about it.

Enjoy your new toy! If you are like most of us, you will start looking for the next one soon. IMO there is nothing like using a old gun like these. I often wonder if the craftsmen that built them ever thought that they would be used in the United States 150 years latter to shoot pheasants, deer, bears etc.

Pete S.
Great addition to this thread however.....a tank on a wagon or truck is subject to flexing forces as well as other forces.
Well made thick barrels of firearms dont flex to the same degree. Any cracks in a twist or bi metal constructed barrel is most likely due to a manufacturing flaw and not flexing or as you put it heavy loading.
If heavy loading is going to cause an issue later on then every proof house in Europe is in deep doodoo!
 
Great addition to this thread however.....a tank on a wagon or truck is subject to flexing forces as well as other forces.
Well made thick barrels of firearms dont flex to the same degree. Any cracks in a twist or bi metal constructed barrel is most likely due to a manufacturing flaw and not flexing or as you put it heavy loading.
If heavy loading is going to cause an issue later on then every proof house in Europe is in deep doodoo!
New and 150 year old barrels do differ if the latter are entered for reproof a lot do not pass Still waiting for answer Which Forums ?
Feltwad
 
Makes you wonder if we all were to meet for a pint and tell lies how things would go? My guess is that we would enjoy the first one so much we would have to try a second.

For you metric countries, does any one call them liters? Having a liter of ale just does not sound as much fun.

Fleener
 
Megasupermagnam you managed to shoot your gun safely which I presume was with some sound advice and not a load of rubbish may be now it is time to see a few sporting pheasant shots flying I hope and not sitting birds Good Shooting
Feltwad
 
Easy guys, I did not side with anybody. I inspected my gun, took all your opinions in mind, and made my own decision. I was not going to be hurt, I was on the other side of a cement block silo. I checked weights today, and my powder measure set to 60 drops about 360 gr of my #5 lead shot, and 58gr of my Goex powder. So what I had actually shot by weight, was 2 1/2 oz of lead and 175 gr powder. That is not some ungodly amount. I'd bet the pressure of that load is very similar to a 1 3/8 oz load in a 20 gauge, which many claim to do on a regular basis.

I don't intend to shoot loads anywhere near that, but I do fully intend on shooting loads up to 1 3/4 oz. If a gun can't handle the weight of a roundball of its own diameter, it what good is it? I found a .780" ball fits good and snug patched with pillow ticking. Cast of clip on wheel weights, they are just over 700 grains, about 1 5/8 oz. With pure lead, they would be even heavier.

@fleener, I did consider the strain it might cause. That is also why I didn't go for a full proof load. I was unable to locate a single gun that had blown up due to being stressed by an overload. I was unable to find a gun blown up with normal loads at all. Common sense tells me that there has to be a point a gun will no longer hold a normal operating pressure, but I felt confident that this one is in decent shape. My only concern was the right side breech plug, I was not worried about the barrels themselves at all.

@Feltwad, I may not be sporting, but I'll take standing still shots all day long. I'll shoot a pheasant on the ground every time. If I could get ducks to land on the water up close, I'd shoot them on the water. A duck on the water is a surprisingly tough target, so they have to be much closer than you can make with a flying shot. Chances are good this gun will be used to hunt some squirrels real soon, which never seem to stay still. The funny thing is here in the USA, it is considered unsporting to shoot a sitting pheasant, but also unsporting to shoot a flying turkey. Shooting running deer is a whole other matter that can cause heated debates. I don't get caught up in all that. I'm out there to hunt, not theorize ethics. I need to cut some more wads, and polish the nipples down some to better fit my #11 caps.
 
Makes you wonder if we all were to meet for a pint and tell lies how things would go? My guess is that we would enjoy the first one so much we would have to try a second.

For you metric countries, does any one call them liters? Having a liter of ale just does not sound as much fun.

Fleener
In Germany they serve litres in stiens. There is or was a British stien but I doubt it was in litres.
 
You may well be correct regards how long I have been muzzleloading. But one place you have no jurisdiction or authority is how I remark on this forum thank you. That sir is for the owners and administration team of this forum, not you.
Now please, direct us to your work or tutorials?
I have liked reading your hunting posts and some quite humorous comments, but having read your comments to another forum user today, you sound like a spoiled child, who hates any criticism. I have lost all respect for you.
 
Good news all around today. I want to thank everyone for their input. I did read it all, and learned from it.....
I loaded 180 gr powder, and an equal volume of shot. This should be at least 2 1/2 oz of shot, if not 2 3/4 oz. Other than a couple incredibly loud booms, there was zero issues at all. The ramrod didn't even creep out. Nothing broke, nothing leaked, and nothing came loose. I then continued to shoot it by hand with lighter loads for about half an hour.
If your interested, Dixie Gun Works catalogs list the British (I think) 1887 proof loads for smoothbores.

For a 9 guage, the "Provisional Proof" load is 394 grains (14 1/2 drams) of powder with a 720 grain ball (about .785 diameter). The Definitive Proof load is 244 grains of powder with 967 grains (2 5/24 ounces) of shot.
The Service load for the 9 guage is 122 grains of powder with 1 21/32 ounces of shot. (That's about 1 5/8 ounces).

Based on these numbers, your proof test was a bit light on powder but I don't recommend that you proof it again with the above loads.
Just shoot and enjoy your gun. :) :thumb:
 
Something I always find odd is that when Americans talk about (and drink) pints of beer, the pint in question is an Imperial pint I believe (20 oz), whereas a US pint is 16 oz. Do Americans realise that the pint they are drinking is bigger?
 
Rudall

That is great to know! Just rebooked for the third time (due to Covid) our trip to Scotland and Ireland for Sept of this year.

I will tuck that away for when we are sitting in a pub having a pint with our traveling partners.

Fleener
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top