wow, I may disagree the way people do things and their advice, as others will disagree with me, but using the word stupid is not nice. I figured this wasn't directed at me, but still there has to be a better way to say you disagree.
-
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
Safety Issue
- Thread starter xbowman
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
If someone asks a question he is ignorant about the subject. Once he receives the CORRECT answer,he's no longer ignorant.But if someone gives him an answer that's dangerous and he blows up his gun or himself,then the person that gave him the STUPID answer is responsible for the consequences.....Stick that in with 160 plus grains and 2 balls...Blow that out your muzzle.
Pittsburghunter
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,344
- Reaction score
- 39
In my Encore :grin:
It would seem that Olson is keeping the real "CORRECT" answer to himself while describing others answers as being "STUPID".
Would Olson please stand up and tell the rest of us what his "correct" answer is?
As for my opinion, the idea of a double load with double balls goes back to the early days of proofing black powder guns. It is nothing new.
IMO, in the days when barrels were made of wrought iron, hammer welded and breeched using home made taps and dies and very short breech plugs, there were very good reasons for doing this. More than a few barrels couldn't take the pressure and exploded.
I believe that barrels made of modern steels and breeched using modern precision threads which are of the current manufacturing "standard" length really do not need to be "proofed" by using a double charge/double ball load.
Hunting Dawg said "I would think that pushing the rifle to such an extreme would do much more harm than good." and I am inclined to agree.
Although, as I mentioned above that I don't think newly made guns need to be proofed, I will say that folks who subject their newly made guns to a test like the double load/double ball test ought to do it right.
What is right? In the Jet Engine industry, when we require a "Proof Pressure Test" we also require that the part must pass NDT (Non Destructive Testing) such as "Magnetic Particle", "Radiographic" or at a minimum "Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection".
Why do we do this? Because the very act of subjecting a part to potentially distructive forces may introduce the very flaws we are trying to screen out, so, IMO, if your going to run this test, run at least one NDT on the barrel/breechplug following the test.
As for testing the guns I've made, I always fire at least 20 shots thru them just to sight them in. I also fire at least one of these shots with a typical hunting load for the caliber being tested. As these are far below the double charge/double ball loads, I am confident the parts have not been overstressed.
Would Olson please stand up and tell the rest of us what his "correct" answer is?
As for my opinion, the idea of a double load with double balls goes back to the early days of proofing black powder guns. It is nothing new.
IMO, in the days when barrels were made of wrought iron, hammer welded and breeched using home made taps and dies and very short breech plugs, there were very good reasons for doing this. More than a few barrels couldn't take the pressure and exploded.
I believe that barrels made of modern steels and breeched using modern precision threads which are of the current manufacturing "standard" length really do not need to be "proofed" by using a double charge/double ball load.
Hunting Dawg said "I would think that pushing the rifle to such an extreme would do much more harm than good." and I am inclined to agree.
Although, as I mentioned above that I don't think newly made guns need to be proofed, I will say that folks who subject their newly made guns to a test like the double load/double ball test ought to do it right.
What is right? In the Jet Engine industry, when we require a "Proof Pressure Test" we also require that the part must pass NDT (Non Destructive Testing) such as "Magnetic Particle", "Radiographic" or at a minimum "Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection".
Why do we do this? Because the very act of subjecting a part to potentially distructive forces may introduce the very flaws we are trying to screen out, so, IMO, if your going to run this test, run at least one NDT on the barrel/breechplug following the test.
As for testing the guns I've made, I always fire at least 20 shots thru them just to sight them in. I also fire at least one of these shots with a typical hunting load for the caliber being tested. As these are far below the double charge/double ball loads, I am confident the parts have not been overstressed.
xbowman said:
Not a bad idea, really, and something I might do if I ever build a gun myself. (though 10% of a max load seems a bit light... I might try it with what I think to be the normal load)
But I'll confess that the first shot I put through the guns I have was done with them on my shoulder. They all came to me second hand, but I took a lot on faith there now that I look back at it.
A destructive test was conducted by Don Getz, of Getz barrels, if my memory is correct. The results of the test were published in the Muzzle Blasts, again if my memory is correct, several years ago.
The results concluded that a modern barrel of normal wall thickness and breeched with a normal length breech plug will withstand extremely high pressures.
The test barrel was breeched at both ends, with a touch hole drilled in the center of the length of the barrel. Several dovetails were cut to varying depths with the deepest dovetail cut deep enough to reduced the wall thickness to about 1/16 of an inch. There were also several blind holes drilled along the length of the barrel to further weaken the metal. The barrel was filled with black powder, the breech screwed in and a fuse inserted into the touchhole. The upshot of this test was that the barrel did not explode. Getz reported that the gasses spewed from the TH as if from a bottle rocket.
I don't remember the caliber, or the diameter across the flats of the barrel, but I seem to remember that the barrel wall was fairly thin. Something on the order of a 54 cal with a 15/16 diameter across the flats.
I have heard of other barrel makers performing similar tests with no failures.
IMHO, it is a waste of time, powder and ball to proof a modern barrel. If one has reservations about the quality of the of a breech/barrel assembly, a competent ML gunsmith should be contacted to evaluate the workmanship of that assembly, otherwise, shoot 'em until they wear out. :v
J.D.
The results concluded that a modern barrel of normal wall thickness and breeched with a normal length breech plug will withstand extremely high pressures.
The test barrel was breeched at both ends, with a touch hole drilled in the center of the length of the barrel. Several dovetails were cut to varying depths with the deepest dovetail cut deep enough to reduced the wall thickness to about 1/16 of an inch. There were also several blind holes drilled along the length of the barrel to further weaken the metal. The barrel was filled with black powder, the breech screwed in and a fuse inserted into the touchhole. The upshot of this test was that the barrel did not explode. Getz reported that the gasses spewed from the TH as if from a bottle rocket.
I don't remember the caliber, or the diameter across the flats of the barrel, but I seem to remember that the barrel wall was fairly thin. Something on the order of a 54 cal with a 15/16 diameter across the flats.
I have heard of other barrel makers performing similar tests with no failures.
IMHO, it is a waste of time, powder and ball to proof a modern barrel. If one has reservations about the quality of the of a breech/barrel assembly, a competent ML gunsmith should be contacted to evaluate the workmanship of that assembly, otherwise, shoot 'em until they wear out. :v
J.D.
Olson said:
So does this mean if I tell someone to drive their car into a wall to fix a dent, and they do it its my fault? Tell that to the insurance company :hmm:
Thank God that most of us have the abillity to think for our selves and process information given to us. This would be a boring place if we all thought the same.
Brokenlaig
36 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2005
- Messages
- 97
- Reaction score
- 0
I'd like to point out that the European Proofing laws require that both BP ad modern firearms be proofed. Proofing requires firing an overload to create a pressure spike to "prove" that that barrel will withstand the normal pressure easily.
I want to say that a proof load represents an overpressure of 30%, but I don't know it that is correct or not.Condsidering that the max charge would be max powder plus conical ball, a double charge of powder and two round balls is probably pretty close to that 30% figure, although that's eyeball engineering.
I want to say that a proof load represents an overpressure of 30%, but I don't know it that is correct or not.Condsidering that the max charge would be max powder plus conical ball, a double charge of powder and two round balls is probably pretty close to that 30% figure, although that's eyeball engineering.
jtmattison
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2004
- Messages
- 4,686
- Reaction score
- 8
Olson said:
First off, I don't think there is any such thing as a stupid answer.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
As long as they are not telling people this is how you SHOULD do it then it is harmless.
If member X say's he likes to try to blow up his new muzzleloader barrel before he hunts with it then that is his problem and no one else'
If he says YOU have to try to blow up your barrel before you hunt with it then I see a problem.
I always say to each his own.
Everyone does things different.
If you don't agree, go ahead and say so but please don't call anyone stupid.
Please, provide feedback on the forum. We value any and all feedback. But please provide feedback in a positive manner and if you see a problem with someones post, offer another solution to the issue.
:hatsoff:
HD
Where did you read this 10% load info? If it was in the kit then I would do it for sure. Sounds strange to me. With a kit you should know exactly what you have. I would follow any recommendations from the MFG. 10% sounds light to me, I would go a wee bit more than that, but it sounds safe to fire it light if you have any doubts. Fire it light, inspect it good, maybe swab it, inspect it again and repeat this process a few times before ya crank it up. This would be a process I would follow for a gun I knew nothing about, like an old piece I find, Seems to me with a kit you put together you should have a good feeling for its overall condition and quality.
This info came with my kit build. I don't think I need to say who's kit. I will type it word for work.
To achieve maximum safety, the rifle should be proof fired in a laboratory with sophisticated equipment. In the absence of such a facility, we believe that proof firing with a charge of no more than 10% greater than the maximum you intend to use in the rifle, with one tightly patched ball, is the best practice. It should go without saying that the proof-load should be fired with the rifle mounted securely, pointed in a safe direction, and with a string used to pull the trigger from a safe distance.
I am sorry to read that my safety question has created such a furor among some.
To achieve maximum safety, the rifle should be proof fired in a laboratory with sophisticated equipment. In the absence of such a facility, we believe that proof firing with a charge of no more than 10% greater than the maximum you intend to use in the rifle, with one tightly patched ball, is the best practice. It should go without saying that the proof-load should be fired with the rifle mounted securely, pointed in a safe direction, and with a string used to pull the trigger from a safe distance.
I am sorry to read that my safety question has created such a furor among some.
xbowman said:
Oh, now I get it. I misunderstood your earlier post to mean you were firing it with a 10% load (e.g. a 70 grain load would get proofed with only 7 grains). Now I see that it means 110% of whatever you think you will be using. (e.g.70 grain load gets proofed with 77 grains, etc). That's reasonable.
I've got to say I'm just a little less trusting than you.
Every "1st shot" (ML or Cartridge) has been done straight armed in my left hand as far from my head as possible, my face turned away.
I know, in a catastrophic failure it won't buy me much. But it might not kill me.
I do check to see if there are proof marks on my MLs.
As I said, I'm a little more distrustful than you....
May fortune favor the foolish..... :youcrazy:
Legion
Every "1st shot" (ML or Cartridge) has been done straight armed in my left hand as far from my head as possible, my face turned away.
I know, in a catastrophic failure it won't buy me much. But it might not kill me.
I do check to see if there are proof marks on my MLs.
As I said, I'm a little more distrustful than you....
May fortune favor the foolish..... :youcrazy:
Legion
Exactly!! Info written in the MFG paper work includes with the kit should be pretty wise to follow to answer the original question. Usually they engage in a bit overkill with their warnings to save themselves from litigation, but it's wise advise I'd say
Guest
The bottom line is this, Follow the recommendation of your barrel maker. Mine gives a max of 110 grains.
looking in my Hornady Reloading manual gives a max of 46.8 grains of 748 powder for a 168 grain projectile. Would I want to up that load by another 25% if I could even fit the powder in the case? Not on my life!!!
You don't need to worry about proof testing today. Let the barrel manufactures worry about that.
The bottom line is this, go my the manufactures recommended maximum load. PERIOD!!!!!
looking in my Hornady Reloading manual gives a max of 46.8 grains of 748 powder for a 168 grain projectile. Would I want to up that load by another 25% if I could even fit the powder in the case? Not on my life!!!
You don't need to worry about proof testing today. Let the barrel manufactures worry about that.
The bottom line is this, go my the manufactures recommended maximum load. PERIOD!!!!!
Pittsburghunter
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,344
- Reaction score
- 39
I had a jag stuck in the bottom of my old CVA rifle for a couple years while my dad still owned it I got it back because he could never shoot again and I wanted to fix the gun. I ended up having to burn the patch off the jag to get it to fall out and did not trust the gun at all. I put the rifle in a sight vise and shot a few rounds out of it before I deemed it safe to shoot again. I did not go above 100g of powder but did load it with 370g maxiballs.
I now only shoot balls out of it and it is one heck of a ball shooter. It is one ugly gun though.
I now only shoot balls out of it and it is one heck of a ball shooter. It is one ugly gun though.
Pittsburghunter
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,344
- Reaction score
- 39
The sightvise worked good because I could aim it and then step back and pull the string. I shot the gun from about 20 feet away.
Big John
45 Cal.
Showing my age, but in 1967 my first b.p. firearm was a 1851 revolver and after reading the loading procedures, the manuel said to put it in your off hand, in the vee of a tree and fire! Now that gets you shaky.
