Proofing a barrel

[JackP]

In a few weeks I will be ready to test fire my barrel.

It's a rice 54. cal Chambers profile.

My question is,is there a rule of thumb on how much powder and weight of projectile for proofing?

In other words, how do you all do it?

Thanks

Jack

 

[Grizzly Adams]

There are a few ways to proof a barrel, you can use 4 times the powder charge with a single projectile, as was demonstrated in the gunsmith of Williamsburg movie, you could use double powder and ball, and I'm sure there's others. Hope this helps.

 

[necchi]

No need to "proof" a reputable makers new barrel, they take specific pains to assure all are safe.

Going through extra measures to over charge a barrel for testing can actually create damage.
It might pass a double charge/double ball load
(pass,, as in not explode)
But that could actually start a bulge that wasn't there in the first place.

Just shoot normal loads and all will be well. :wink:

 

[Vaino]

When my builds are "in the white", they're function fired twice....not proofed w/ "big loads" which can be double balls and excessive powder charges. Personally, I think proofing w/ excessive loads is unnecessary and could possibly do some harm.

For a .54 I use 120 grs 2f behind a PRB. This load is on the high end of hunting loads and will "proof" for function.....Fred

 

[jerrywh]

There is no need to proof a reputable barrel makers barrel never the less I often do for peace of mind. I use this common old logic. There are two common mistakes we make in loading a muzzle loader. The first is we will accidentally put in a double charge of powder. The second is we might put in 2 patched balls. Therefore I proof the first load with a double maximum charge of powder and one prb. Second the next proof load is a maximum standard powder charge and two patched round ball. Some times I proof with a double powder charge and one buffalo conical also.
There are other dumb mistakes people make in loading but like the man said there is no fool proof method if the fool is big enough.
This gives me peace of mind. Never fire a gun that has one full load on top of another full load and Mark your ram rod.

 

[galamb]

Agree with a couple of the other here - no need to "proof the barrel".

Now, if you want to make sure you have put everything together correctly I would load her up with a "max load" and fire it with a string pulling the trigger with the rifle fixed to some kind of bench (shooting or improvised).

I usually do that with a couple of rounds and then give it a good once over - pull the barrel, check around the plug, drum/nipple/liner (whatever is applicable) to see if there is any evidence of gas cutting - also will check to make sure everything is still screwed in tight.

But other than that there is no need to dump in 4 times the powder charge, double ball or whatever method you have read on some internet post.

You are dealing with a barrel from a premier builder and a plug that was probably x-rayed for flaws before it was shipped to the supplier.

Unless YOU made a critical error the parts are very unlikely to fail when used as intended.

 

[jamesthomas]

There is no need whatsoever to "proof" a Rice barrel. Jason of Rice barrels is one of the best barrel makers out there. Just start with a normal or low load and work up your most accurate load.

 

[Zonie]

I agree with everyone. There is no need to proof the barrel and doing it can actually cause invisible damage.

I always shoot the rifles I build to make sure they work like they are supposed to and to get them sighted in.

On one occasion, this detected a build error which caused repeated misfires.
After fixing it, it again was shot to finish sighting it in and to prove the fix worked.

All of this shooting was done with standard loads that would be used by any shooter. They were not proof loads.

 

[Col. Batguano]

The other easy to make if you're not paying attention mistake is; powder / patch / ball, powder / patch / ball. A full double load. That's why marking your rod (empty and full) is always a good idea.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

YOU CAN'T PROOF A BARREL

Sorry,

Not trying to shout, but to really get everybodies' attention.

To "PROOF" a barrel you must submit that barrel to one of the many proof houses that are part of the CIP agreement, and have them do the test, then stamp the barrel with a proper proof mark.

There is no actual standard for black powder so each proof house, unlike with modern ammunition, establishes its criteria to bestow its proof mark upon a barrel. England's is in Birmingham, and they fire a load considered to be 250% of the max plus two projectiles, while in Italy it's only 140% and a single projectile. In Germany (iirc) they conduct two tests, a preliminary and a final and give two marks (but that might be only on barrels for smokeless cartridges). America, Canada, and Japan are three arms making countries that do not have a proof house.

This is important..., for you sometimes find people who are selling black powder reproduction guns and they will write "barrel has been proofed" which legally means they submitted it to a proper proof house, the barrel passed and has been stamped, when in fact all that has been done is a private test.

So you can "test" a barrel if you wish, but a private test to come close to being a proof equivalent, should be more than a guesstimate of the charge, a couple of patched balls, and firing it with a lanyard, followed by an eyeball exam.

If you want something a bit more accurate you might want to at least have the barrel undergo a magnetic particle inspection aka magnafluxed before you pronounced it passed your test. It might have cracks unseen to the naked eye or even the magnifying glass. Heck you might consider an xray, and you should inspect the outside with a caliper for micro bulges.

OR as suggested simply go with the track record of the barrel maker, AND inspect the breech plug installation... for I have bought a very good barrel in the past where the wholesaler installed the breech plug and there was a teeny tiny gap between the face and the barrel. They fixed it but how many are out there like that because nobody looked?

LD

 

[zimmerstutzen]

In Germany there are state proof houses and muzzle loading salute guns, thunder mugs, and cannons must be submitted to the proof house (Beschussamt) for testing and then stamped by the agency according to law. If I READ the website correctly, it costs about 70 euros.

 

[Zonie]

I've mentioned this before but it's worth saying again.

A lot of companies pressure proof the parts they make.
In the jet engine business where I worked for 40 years, parts are proof tested because a failure of some parts could kill hundreds of people.

Most parts are tested at fairly low pressures to see if they will leak. Some parts are tested to see if they are going to explode.

With this latter type of testing, the proof testing can damage the structure of the part so although the part passed the test, the test itself can make the part dangerous.

That is why following these tests the parts are always inspected for physical damage.
This always requires inspections that look for cracks that might have been created by the test. These cracks can be internal or both internal and external.

External cracks are the easiest to detect but a visual inspection is not enough. The crack on the surface may be so narrow, it can't be seen with the bare eye.

To detect these almost invisible and/or hidden cracks special tests like Penetrent Inspection, Magnetic Particle Inspection, X-Ray and Eddy Current methods are used.

Of these tests, two are available to the home gun-builder: Penetrant Inspection which can only detect cracks that break the surface of the part, and Magnetic Particle Inspection, often called Magnaflux, which can find cracks that are thru or below the surface of the part.

Companies like Brownell sell Penetrant Inspection fluid(s).
Your local automotive engine rebuilder probably has a Magnaflux machine that can do the better, Magnetic Particle Inspection.

If you don't have access to these tests, my recommendation is to forget about your proof test.

It can change a barrel that is totally safe to shoot and change it into a barrel that is just waiting to explode on the next shot.

 

[jerrywh]

Every single Italian muzzle loader is proof tested and all the other countries in the European union and south America also. This includes revolvers. So they are all potential bombs? Proof loads are published for black powder guns. Pesersoli, uberti all of them and all of Thompson centers and CVA's are proofed. That's the law. However, I admit this is not the same as one of us doing it. As for me, I have proofed every gun I built since 1956.

 

[kaintuck]

Did you say poof a barrel? My barrels always poof when they are fired... :rotf: :rotf:

Marc n tomtom

 

[Zonie]

No. I didn't say all proofed barrels are potential bombs.

Because a proof test is designed to over stress the barrel beyond normal pressures, there is a chance that the barrel could be damaged.
Without further non destructive testing to see if this has happened IMO, the test is incomplete.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Thompson center guns proofed?
When and where did you receive such information. Never saw a proof mark on a tc.

 

[Col. Batguano]

Too bad there is no such thing as a hydro test for gun barrels, similar to what they use for high pressure gas cylinders.

 

[jerrywh]

If Thompson Center barrels are made in the USA they are probably not individually proofed. In the USA such things are generally kept safe by the Threat of law suits and crooked attorneys.

 

[jerrywh]

There are no firearms proof requirement laws in the USA or Switzerland. Manufacturers here are guided by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute for the most part and the threat of law suits and liability. Some companies do proof test and just because a barrel is not marked does not mean it was not tested.
Also a proper proof test is not a destructive test. It is not designed to destroy the barrel.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I know most companies test fire their guns. But that isn't a "proof" any more than driving a new ford from the assembly line to the loading dock.

I recall hearing allegations that the pressure standard set by one Spanish manufacturer for their "required" proof was set lower than many hunters use for hunting charges.

The testing used in some countries for testing "proof" certification, involves measuring interior and exterior barrel measurements in numerous places and then making sure there were no expansions from the proof load. Such testing is a bit more scientific than the redneck duct tape and old tire method. (which I confess to using sometimes)