-
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
Middlesex vs. Discriminating General The Same!
- Thread starter jakeinthelake
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Status
RAEDWALD
40 Cal.
Not to dictate to Americans, but would the solution not be to have an impartial government proof house or at least have a government standard that can be applied by a private proof house?
Ignoring the costs, there is nothing to stop barrels being proofed in government proof houses outside the USA and this could be a sales point.
Alternatively, and extending the concept further, a private USA proof house (say a commercial engineering laboratory) could apply, say British or German, proof standards and certify and stamp the barrel to that effect. Not a legal requirement but a proof that the barrel met these standards.
One of these might satisfy both sides of this issue?
Ignoring the costs, there is nothing to stop barrels being proofed in government proof houses outside the USA and this could be a sales point.
Alternatively, and extending the concept further, a private USA proof house (say a commercial engineering laboratory) could apply, say British or German, proof standards and certify and stamp the barrel to that effect. Not a legal requirement but a proof that the barrel met these standards.
One of these might satisfy both sides of this issue?
Ike Godsey
45 Cal.
(speaking from an outside view - non US)
sure it would - but it should be mandatory for ALL weapons produced there, regardless of factory or maker, regardless of system (cartridge or muzzleloader) regardless of...
here in Germany EVERY weapon that is produced after Jan. 1st 1890 and guns that have been build before that date and have been altered MUST be proofed by a official German proofhouse.
it is simply a good feeling if you buy a gun, fire it the first time and know that is already proofed to be safe.
well sure, it does not protect you from selfmade amunition that has a "hot load" in it, but using CIP proofed amunition, there will be no damage to both, the gun and the shooter.
ike
sure it would - but it should be mandatory for ALL weapons produced there, regardless of factory or maker, regardless of system (cartridge or muzzleloader) regardless of...
here in Germany EVERY weapon that is produced after Jan. 1st 1890 and guns that have been build before that date and have been altered MUST be proofed by a official German proofhouse.
it is simply a good feeling if you buy a gun, fire it the first time and know that is already proofed to be safe.
well sure, it does not protect you from selfmade amunition that has a "hot load" in it, but using CIP proofed amunition, there will be no damage to both, the gun and the shooter.
ike
Actually Ike, that's true if all other factors are equal. A bore obstruction or a poorly maintained firearm... proofing can't help,
Yulzari,
All of the proofing houses are certified by an international agreement when dealing with modern cartridges, however they do not adhere to the same proofing standards when it comes to black powder.
The standard that is being applied by those who tout Pedersoli, is the Italian standard, which is 140% of a main charge and a single projectile. The German, Belgium, and British standards are much higher in powder and use a double projectile. (IIRC) the German and or Austrian standard has two tests before final proofing is valid.
Plus from what many have written on many forums, the understanding of what proofing does, and what it does not do, is lacking. Proof testing does show that the barrel held that proofing house's charge and projectile, when the barrel left the proofing house. It has zero bearing on how the barrel is cared for over the years. And all of the proof houses have had barrels sent for re-testing, known as re-proofing, that have failed. So folks that think that a Pedersoli is superior because it has been proofed, but attend events where the interior of the musket barrels are not inspected..., are fooling themselves. I inspected two Pedersoli's on October 27th..., and neither were safe to fire due to internal barrel pitting, although externally, they appeared in very good condition.
What the owner of the two muskets should do to satisfy those who tout proofing, would be to replace the barrels with new, proofed barrels, OR he could send the guns to Italy for reproofing (or could send them to Birmingham England for a higher proofing test). He may fire his own proof load, and then have the barrels measured and then magnafluxed. Since nobody is going to question the already proofed barrels, this is probably what he will do. If he does nothing, nobody will know, as nobody checks musket barrels for improper care at target or living history events...
Nothing is stopping folks from loading their Indian Bess with 170 grains of 2Fg (IF you use 120 grains as the 100% load), and a wad, and a .735 ball, then firing it..., and then having the barrel measured for bulges and having the barrel examined with Magnetic Particle Inspection (magnafluxed) for cracks, etc.... assuming it doesn't blow. This would equal Italian proofing. However, many of the folks who tout proofing demand it be done from an actual "internationally certified" proof house... even though there is no standard for black powder muzzleloaders in the international certification.
Nothing is stopping folks from sending their Colerain musket barrels to a proof house, or doing their own proofing as mentioned above. American black powder barrels are not proofed, and neither were the Japanese barrels. And before somebody chimes in with "The American Barrels are higher quality steel", while that is true, ALL black powder barrels in England and Germany, which are of equal steel to the American barrels are proofed. So are American barrels when they are imported...
In July of 2013, a series of imported musket barrels was tested, and the results were:
"We have tested the following barrels using the old English standard of a triple charge double ball load
the barrels are measured at room temperature with a micrometer at 3" intervals starting at the breech face.
we have tested various barrels from a number of makers and national origins with only 2 failures out of almost 200 barrels
neither of the barrels that failed was Indian
one was an unmarked straight octagon barrel that blew out it's breech plug
the other one was an Armisport Enfield barrel that split just ahead of the breech. in fairness both of the failures were on used barrels that had been volunteered for this test and they were both pretty badly neglected
In the case of both failures, neglect and corrosion appear to be the major cause of the failures."
Now I don't know if the person conducting the test has sufficient capabilities to do a valid test, and they have yet to magnaflux the suviving barrels for micro cracks, but it does bear out the problem with poorly cared for barrels, reagardless of having been proofed.
LD
Yulzari,
All of the proofing houses are certified by an international agreement when dealing with modern cartridges, however they do not adhere to the same proofing standards when it comes to black powder.
The standard that is being applied by those who tout Pedersoli, is the Italian standard, which is 140% of a main charge and a single projectile. The German, Belgium, and British standards are much higher in powder and use a double projectile. (IIRC) the German and or Austrian standard has two tests before final proofing is valid.
Plus from what many have written on many forums, the understanding of what proofing does, and what it does not do, is lacking. Proof testing does show that the barrel held that proofing house's charge and projectile, when the barrel left the proofing house. It has zero bearing on how the barrel is cared for over the years. And all of the proof houses have had barrels sent for re-testing, known as re-proofing, that have failed. So folks that think that a Pedersoli is superior because it has been proofed, but attend events where the interior of the musket barrels are not inspected..., are fooling themselves. I inspected two Pedersoli's on October 27th..., and neither were safe to fire due to internal barrel pitting, although externally, they appeared in very good condition.
What the owner of the two muskets should do to satisfy those who tout proofing, would be to replace the barrels with new, proofed barrels, OR he could send the guns to Italy for reproofing (or could send them to Birmingham England for a higher proofing test). He may fire his own proof load, and then have the barrels measured and then magnafluxed. Since nobody is going to question the already proofed barrels, this is probably what he will do. If he does nothing, nobody will know, as nobody checks musket barrels for improper care at target or living history events...
Nothing is stopping folks from loading their Indian Bess with 170 grains of 2Fg (IF you use 120 grains as the 100% load), and a wad, and a .735 ball, then firing it..., and then having the barrel measured for bulges and having the barrel examined with Magnetic Particle Inspection (magnafluxed) for cracks, etc.... assuming it doesn't blow. This would equal Italian proofing. However, many of the folks who tout proofing demand it be done from an actual "internationally certified" proof house... even though there is no standard for black powder muzzleloaders in the international certification.
Nothing is stopping folks from sending their Colerain musket barrels to a proof house, or doing their own proofing as mentioned above. American black powder barrels are not proofed, and neither were the Japanese barrels. And before somebody chimes in with "The American Barrels are higher quality steel", while that is true, ALL black powder barrels in England and Germany, which are of equal steel to the American barrels are proofed. So are American barrels when they are imported...
In July of 2013, a series of imported musket barrels was tested, and the results were:
"We have tested the following barrels using the old English standard of a triple charge double ball load
the barrels are measured at room temperature with a micrometer at 3" intervals starting at the breech face.
we have tested various barrels from a number of makers and national origins with only 2 failures out of almost 200 barrels
neither of the barrels that failed was Indian
one was an unmarked straight octagon barrel that blew out it's breech plug
the other one was an Armisport Enfield barrel that split just ahead of the breech. in fairness both of the failures were on used barrels that had been volunteered for this test and they were both pretty badly neglected
In the case of both failures, neglect and corrosion appear to be the major cause of the failures."
Now I don't know if the person conducting the test has sufficient capabilities to do a valid test, and they have yet to magnaflux the suviving barrels for micro cracks, but it does bear out the problem with poorly cared for barrels, reagardless of having been proofed.
LD
Ike Godsey
45 Cal.
well thats true LD - nothing would protect you from wrong care nad wrong loads.
i have seen an Pedersoli Bess blowing up as fired from a rest. those guys fire their muskets from a table up hill on a reg. door size target that is 200 meters away.
i have been maybe 20 yards away from the muskets rest. at the time the guy fired the gun, there was a VERY LOUD BOOOM and about 5 yards in front of me the lock was falling in to the gras. the barrel of the musket was nearly gone in small parts that hit several people. the breechplug was later found in the shooters shoulder while he was in the hospital.
it turns out that he loaded the bess with 120 grains of 3F BP mixed with about 1/3 of nitro pistol powder.
this charge will kill almost every muzzleloading barrel no matter if proofed or not...
anyway, you should have seen the remaining rest of the bess. the stock was nearly OK, the lock was a bit bend, but the barrel more than 80% of it was simply gone.
i really hope i see such things never again...
ike
i have seen an Pedersoli Bess blowing up as fired from a rest. those guys fire their muskets from a table up hill on a reg. door size target that is 200 meters away.
i have been maybe 20 yards away from the muskets rest. at the time the guy fired the gun, there was a VERY LOUD BOOOM and about 5 yards in front of me the lock was falling in to the gras. the barrel of the musket was nearly gone in small parts that hit several people. the breechplug was later found in the shooters shoulder while he was in the hospital.
it turns out that he loaded the bess with 120 grains of 3F BP mixed with about 1/3 of nitro pistol powder.
this charge will kill almost every muzzleloading barrel no matter if proofed or not...
anyway, you should have seen the remaining rest of the bess. the stock was nearly OK, the lock was a bit bend, but the barrel more than 80% of it was simply gone.
i really hope i see such things never again...
ike
Rod Lassey
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,418
- Reaction score
- 10
Loyalist Dave said:
At last, some common sense.... :applause:
I'll freely admit to owning an Indian gun---a copy of a brass-barreled Ketland horse pistol. My reasons? Nobody's producing anything like it over here, and I couldn't justify the cost of a custom build. Not that I'm knocking custom builds, both my main rifles are custom made, and I made a steel-barreled version of a Wheeler horse pistol. But for the cost, I couldn't produce another pistol, and had no access to a correct brass barrel.
As others have noted, it's best to think of these guns as in-the-white kits. I stripped the finish off mine, slimmed down the stock, refinished, tuned up the lock, etc. What I ended up with was a rather close copy of a period Belgian knock-off of a Ketland pistol.
This brings up another thought----what about all the poor quality original guns? Where's the NW guns with the spliced two-piece stocks? The French fusils du traite with the burst and repaired barrels, like the one in the Museum of the Fur Trade? How about locks without interior or exterior bridles? Face it, compared to many originals, those Indian guns are actually of better quality.
I think much depends on the individual gun---some I've seen I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for, others seem to be good value for the money. Shop around, and try to examine any gun, Indian or otherwise, before you buy.
Rod
Ike Godsey
45 Cal.
Rod L said:
this is the same reason i bought my india guns - actually i have two of them - a 1717 french musket, that is fitted with a spanish barrel (the story of it is somewhere here in the forum) and a LLP with german proof.
the price of both guns together is less than a costum made LLP TOW kit. til i have it here it is about 1300 euros, which is about 1700US$. both india guns have been less than 900 euros.
both are performing well.
Rod L said:
simply true! :thumbsup:
ike
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2012
- Messages
- 669
- Reaction score
- 488
I proof test every muzzleloader I make or buy, before shooting from the shoulder. I use double the maximum load of powder I intend for the gun, plus double the shot or 2 patched balls.
My Indian made .69 cal musket passed a test with 200 grains 2F and 2 1/2 ounces shot.
Be careful doing your own testing, however. Recently I tested a 30" 12 gauge flintlock barrel. I used 220 grains 2f and 3 ounces shot. I had made a holder for the barrel from a heavy plank and used wooden clamps to hold the barrel down. When the charge went off; it broke the clamps and ripped off the thick wooden block that was screwed down behind the breech. The barrel flew about 60 feet back, and stuck in the ground. The barrel was undamaged and measured exactly the same. Lesson...don't stand behind or anywhere near the barrel when firing.
My Indian made .69 cal musket passed a test with 200 grains 2F and 2 1/2 ounces shot.
Be careful doing your own testing, however. Recently I tested a 30" 12 gauge flintlock barrel. I used 220 grains 2f and 3 ounces shot. I had made a holder for the barrel from a heavy plank and used wooden clamps to hold the barrel down. When the charge went off; it broke the clamps and ripped off the thick wooden block that was screwed down behind the breech. The barrel flew about 60 feet back, and stuck in the ground. The barrel was undamaged and measured exactly the same. Lesson...don't stand behind or anywhere near the barrel when firing.
okawbow said:
THANK YOU Okabow. What some here might call "The English Proof" involves double powder and ball charges, an old tire and many good bungey cords, a long piece of string, and a thick tree. Or my stupid BIL. Now, I expect that will find any defects and not damage the gun in the testing itself.
A whole BIL I couldn't care less about...
zimmerstutzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 5,848
- Reaction score
- 1,215
Send your guns to my lazy unemployed step son for proofing. He has failed miserable at other avocations and has only been successful at getting arrested for DUI charges.
RAEDWALD
40 Cal.
Certainly proofing will not eliminate poor maintenance or idiots. Few things are foolproof and nothing is soldier proof but at least someone in the USA could buy a gun with a fresh proof knowing it is, at least, of a certain standard. Those of a poor quality will fail and never enter the market.
Incidentally, if you live somewhere completely away from the modern world, the old crack testing method of Rolls Royce was to paint the item with paraffin (kerosene), wait until it was just dry. Then dust the item with talcum powder. In a crack then paraffin would remain wet a little longer and would wet the talcum powder so you could see the signs of a crack.
I recall this being used in the field by a motor racing team. But then they also dealt with head cracking with mustard powder and clutch slip with coca cola so this may not be a recommendation....
Incidentally, if you live somewhere completely away from the modern world, the old crack testing method of Rolls Royce was to paint the item with paraffin (kerosene), wait until it was just dry. Then dust the item with talcum powder. In a crack then paraffin would remain wet a little longer and would wet the talcum powder so you could see the signs of a crack.
I recall this being used in the field by a motor racing team. But then they also dealt with head cracking with mustard powder and clutch slip with coca cola so this may not be a recommendation....
No the parts were supposedly from the rifle shop,colerane barrel.english walnut stock.Very nice handleing gun with very nice finish,just never sparked very well and there ws a problem with the lock screws.Certainly NOT India gun.Alden said:
Be careful -- you might get Siouxed. By a Delaware corporation. Iowa lotta money yet still, Oneida new gun myself. Shawnee can buy his own if he wants one bad enough too -- he's got cash in his Nez Perce.
Problem could be he isn't using Apache. And I think he found a Chippewa down on the heel of the stock too.
But, if he really doesn't like it he can always sell it to a Pawnee shop or toss it into a Creek.
I just Hopi it all works out for him.
:rotf:
Problem could be he isn't using Apache. And I think he found a Chippewa down on the heel of the stock too.
But, if he really doesn't like it he can always sell it to a Pawnee shop or toss it into a Creek.
I just Hopi it all works out for him.
:rotf:
Five pages so far, 32 to go to set a new bar for discussion of India-made guns ...
:rotf:
:rotf:
"set a new bar for discussion of India-made guns ..." I think Alden just did that. :shake: It was so low I just broke my big toe tripping over it. :v
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
