Proof test or no?

[jonk]

Especially for original arms...

Part of me, despite hundreds of rounds fired out of my 3 original smoothbores, still gets nervous about the idea of pulling the trigger on a 200 year old gun with some surface pitting and a paper thin muzzle. I mean, logically I KNOW that 50 gr of 3f with an unpatched ball is less pressure than an 80 gr load with buck and ball with patches or wadding, but part of me wonders, "am I living on borrowed time?"

The traditional approach to proofing a barrel would be 2 balls and a double powder charge... but then, I think that 160 gr of 2f plus 2 round balls really MIGHT blow up an antique SB, especially an 1816. And, if it didn't part of me would wonder if THAT hadn't weakened it to the point that now it WOULD fail at some point?

Just wondering what other members have done.

[Rob FreemanWBR]

Jonk,

PURELY my personal opinion - but if you don't have complete trust & faith in your equipment, then why even use it?

The longest distance any competitive shooter has to contend with, is the distance between your ears... If your mind is pre-occupied with wondering if your piece will fail, while waiting for your shot to break, you're not shooting at your best and hurting your overall performance.

Safety is absolutely paramount in shooting. If you really are concerned as to your arms' integrity, I strongly recommend having all of them given a good "once over" by a member of the SAC. I would think that they'd be more than happy to give your smoothies a free, through and educated diagnosis.

In short, you owe it to yourself and your fellow skirmishers to ensure that you're not taking any firearm up to the line which could potentially suffer a catastrophic failure.

I'm in no way lecturing you brother! I only want you (and everyone for that matter) to skirmish safely, and enjoy our sport.

[Mike Rouch 07791]

Rob, I totally agree. Well said.



Mike

[John Holland]

The following is from the N-SSA Rules, Section 19: Small Arms:

IMPORTANT NOTICE.

In this, and all other sections and sub-sections of these
Skirmish Rules, the term "approved" by the N-SSA or its designated representative(s) shall mean that the item in question has been found to meet the dimension, configuration, mechanical function, and authenticity criteria of the N-SSA. It does not in any way imply, or infer, or guarantee the safety or the integrity of any particular item.

John Holland
Chairman, SAC

[Rob FreemanWBR]

I see...

Well unfortunately Jonk, in light of our SAC Chairman's' skillfully crafted response it now appears that you're back to square one, and left to determine another course of action.

Good luck.

[Eggman]

This string takes me back to the late 70's and the barrel steel hub-bub. Before making a few observations - Jonk your concerns are totally in your own hands. I have no recommendations.
In the late 70's there were quite a number of barrel failures. According to my shakey memory they were all modern made barrels. Two I wrote up that occurred in my area were a Thompson-Center Hawken and a Sharon. These failures, and I believe most all of the others studied, were the result of short started balls - balls not seated on the powder. The rub was some of the failures, as was the case of the Thompson-Center I looked at, were catastrophic involving fragmentation. The Sharon pealed like a banana. Again I don't remember any old timers giving up the ghost. And of great interest, the much maligned Itallian replicas hardly ever, if ever, failed. The key word is "tough" steel, steel that bulges rather than breaks.
Much analysis of the steels used followed and maybe some law suits - I can't remember for sure. All this was captured in a series of "Buckskin Report" magazines. To the chagrin of many hard core US barrel users, the Itallian steels were judged very high quality - gun grade (tough steel). Most of the old timers were judged the same way. Not so some of the popular US brands. By law Itallian replcas are proof tested before they're sent over here. Thus when I went smoothbore I went straight to the Armi Sport '42.
Obviously folks this is a touchy topic. But it's one that should be discussed all over the place for obvious reasons.

[jonk]

Oh I know that the SAC approval is based purely on dimensional acceptance of a piece, and even arms not needing SAC approval should be shot at the discretion of a shooter (or gun smith if the shooter feels unable to make the determination) as to condition and safety. Nor would I bring a gun to the line that I hadn't had thoroughly disassembled, inspected for any undue pits or other faults, and hadn't looked down the barrel to verify condition, as well as having shot it a lot to boot. All 3 of my originals have had that once over, and as I say: hundreds if not thousands of rounds out of each kind of proves that they're almost certainly ok. I'm just wondering if other members have specifically proofed their guns or not.

Of the 3, which include a 42, Potsdam, and 16, the 42 is by far in the best shape. Absolutely no pitting, just a veneer of surface rust that has naturally browned the barrel evenly. Bore has almost no pits. I'm pretty confident in that gun. The Potsdam has a lot of surface pitting, but simply taking it out of the stock and noting the thickness of the barrel (really quite ridiculously thick at that) makes me feel that it also is pretty safe. My concern is the 16. I wouldn't exactly call it pitted, more that wrinkly surface rust that some guns get, which judicious oiling and rubbing with burlap has smoothed to remove any active rust. Nor is the bore overly pitted. Accepting that the conversion was done some time later than the original barrel was made, I don't know as I even worry about the breech- other than noting that due to the nature of the H&P conversions, the breech area opens up a bit compared to the barrel and would be a good place for fouling to accumulate. It's just that paper thin muzzle and thin barrel that give me pause.

Ultimately of course it is my choice, and it's not like the gun has ever given me any issue, just that for piece of mind I might relegate it to a "shoot once in a blue moon" gun, or else get it relined for the piece of mind of a liner of modern steel.

Then I hear of replicas failing as well, though that hasn't apparently happened much in recent years, and I pause and consider things even further, saying simply, "ain't no guarantees."

[bobanderson]

The following is from the N-SSA Rules, Section 19: Small Arms:

IMPORTANT NOTICE.

In this, and all other sections and sub-sections of these
Skirmish Rules, the term "approved" by the N-SSA or its designated representative(s) shall mean that the item in question has been found to meet the dimension, configuration, mechanical function, and authenticity criteria of the N-SSA. It does not in any way imply, or infer, or guarantee the safety or the integrity of any particular item.

John Holland
Chairman, SAC

Thanks, John.

I considered breaking it to him that I was not in any way going to certify a particular arm as safe to use under any circumstances. Even a wall hanger could fall and knock someone out.

[bobanderson]

It's just that paper thin muzzle and thin barrel that give me pause.

Jonk,
Why does a paper thin muzzle give you concern? I'd think that the greatest amount of pressure occurs at the breach section when the force of the powder change has to overcome the inertia of the projectile. I'm sure by the time that ball has travelled 42", the pressure should have dropped considerably. Smokeless powder is a different animal, but I know that if you overcharge black powder beyond the ability of it to burn inside the confines of the barrel, the remainder will simply blow out, unburned, on to the ground. I've seen it done shooting a round ball gun over a snow covered ground.

I've had my H&P apart, and I've seen a 42 breech. Both of those are a lot beefier than they need to be to withstand the charges we shoot. The infamous "Cone-in conversions", those with a nipple drilled and tapped right into the chamber look like an accident looking for a place to happen.

[Eggman]

Sam Fadala did a lot of pressure tests. Max prssure in a muzzle loader is the first couple of inches of ball travel. Pressure (PSI) then drops off very fast.

[jonk]

Bob, regarding the paper thin muzzle thing... I'm sure it is entirely mental on my part. I logically KNOW that the combination of black powder's burn characteristics, loose fitting unpatched round ball, barrel length, and lack of any real pits on the gun especially near the muzzle all mean, that area is the least of my concerns. And, if somehow something WERE to go haywire there, it's far enough out that it would be unlikely to hurt anyone anyhow. Like I say, just a mental thing.

I mean the breech area of this gun does have some pits as I say, but none are even a millimeter deep. And, if I needed any proof of the mild nature of a charge of black powder, burn characteristics aside, I have it simply by looking at my black powder cartridge brass; unless annealed it fails to obdurate, telling me that the pressure overall is even within the ability of a thin brass case's ability to contain.

I guess my nervousness comes from the simple fact that I had a gun blow up on me once when I was behind the trigger. Bolt action. Apparently it was a combination of lug set back, a hidden occlusion in the metal, and a stiff (but not max) load. Having had my face sprayed with burning kernels of powder and brass and steel once (thank God for safety glasses) it makes me rather cautious about ANY gun.

[John Holland]

Jonk - You were most fortunate in surviving the catastrophic failure of a modern bolt action rifle! What I am about to say isn't going to make you feel any better about firing antique arms of the Civil War era. All three of your original arms noted, M-1809 Potsdam, M-1816 H&P, and the M-1842, ALL have barrels made by lap welding flat sheet iron around a mandrel. The original "proof test" was essentially to make sure the seams didn't burst. Now, add 175 years of use and abuse to those arms....

A friend has an original flint lock Whitney, unmarked, that is still in unfired condition. The musket is from the mid 1830's and was assembled from an assortment of government condemned parts and others of Whitney manufacture. The only sure indicator of it being a Whitney product is the Whitney "Chicken-Eagle" stamped on the lock plate. Most assuredly one of his "Good & Serviceable Arms" sold to the states. The point to this is that when you drop a light down the bore, which is still mirror bright, you can see very quickly why it was a condemned barrel. There is a slag flaw which became exposed when the bore was finish polished! It is about 14" down the bore, about 4" long, about 1/16" wide, and parallel to the upper edge of the left hand stock channel. So, we never know what is lurking just under the surface!

JDH

[Eggman]

My new made Armi Sport '42 just took up a special glow.

[Eggman]

Fort Leonard Wood 1968. Trainee's M-14 blew up - multiple pieces. EOD and me sent to investigate (somebody had to go). We checked the BLANK ammo rounds not yet fired. The plugs in several unfired rounds removed - cases packed with more powder (to get that extra bang), then replugged. We say obvious tamper. Company Cmdr. says the blow back from the rifle blowup blew powder back into the unfired blanks. HIs theory good as ours. Case dismissed (cmdrs rule!!)

[Jim_Burgess_2078V]

Jonk,

Why risk destroying a perfectly good and valuable antique firearm with a proof load when there are so many good reproductions out there that you can easily afford? Preserving history is one of the N-SSA's stated objectives.

Jim Burgess, 15th CVI

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Gents, I have a M-1842 barrel that was shortened to 30-inches bearing only the “V” (view) mark without the “P” (proof), and oddly enough, no eagle stamp. More so, the view mark appears in the position normally occupied by the proof mark, which has led to some speculation this might be a Palmetto barrel, which were often marked "P' over "V" followed by the Palmetto tree mark? Indeed, this barrel may even perhaps be one of the 75 Palmetto barrels that had burst during proof? Normally, if a barrel failed in proof testing at one of the national armories (i.e. Springfield or Harpers Ferry) the barrel might be salvaged by cutting off the barrel just above the failed seam (after the final proof), and the barrel used to build a short musket or carbine, usually having a minimum barrel length of 24-inches or longer. Barrels that failed by bursting less than 24-inches beyond the breech were general sold off as so much scrap-iron.

The barrel that I have (above) burst in two locations; one open seam, one-inch long located 12-inches forward of the breech, and the other, about the same length seam rupture, located about 22-inches forward of the breech. The seam ruptures are both hidden from view by the wood of the barrel channel so would not have been seen except when dismounted for cleaning. Despite having these two obvious seam failures, the seams were simply soldered smooth and the barrel subsequently stocked, and as far as can be discerned, the musket was evidently issued either in full-length or possibly in its present length (30"), the barrel showing signs of once being burnished bright (including the soldered seams perhaps to hide them?). Though such war-time exigencies may have pressed such deficiencies into service, this would not have been the norm during peace-time. Though re-lining this barrel might rendered it re-useable today, I elected not to have it re-lined so to keep its original historical curiosity, especially should it later be proven a Palmetto barrel.

[Eggman]

We have quite a number of dwarf skirmishers who shorten their smoothbores like this. I'm sure one of them will be interested.

[Gary Van Kauwenbergh, 101]

Red Green illustrates the effects of over-charging bullets in thin-walled barrels during the opening segment of his ‘Grapes of Wrath’ episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06najAOOnvc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06najAOOnvc)

[R. McAuley 3014V]

With regards to particularly foreign made arms, I realize that a number of skirmishers have a fancy for the British Model 1842 smoothbore, but unlike the Model 1853 largely produced after 1855, prior to that year, as is noted below, barrels were only proved once, and that in a rather early stage of manufacture, usually just as soon as the barrel tube has been formed and its bore reamed smooth.

“The proving of barrels, with a view to the security of the public, is a subject which has received the careful attention of the legislature. In 1637 a charter was granted by Charles I to the gunmakers of London, for proving all manner of guns made within ten miles of London. In Birmingham the proof of barrels was left to each individual manufacturer, till in 1813 a public proof house was erected in Banbury Street, and an Act passed rendering compulsory the proving of all barrels made in England, either at the proof house in London or Birmingham. A second Act, giving more extended powers, was passed in 1815.

These regulations worked well for Birmingham, and the security which was felt in English guns materially aided in obtaining for our trade the high reputation which it enjoys. No change was made in the system pursued till 1855, when the inventions of modern times called for fresh regulations. They were embodied in an Act of Parliament passed in that year, which remains still in force. The security of the user was very greatly increased by the provisions of this Act.

Under the previous one, barrels were proved only once, and that in a rather early stage of manufacture. It followed that certain descriptions of guns, as, for instance, rifles when grooved, and double guns when joined together, were weakened after proof, and sometimes rendered unsafe. The present Act requires that all barrels shall be proved twice, once “provisionally,” as the Act terms it, and a second time “definitively,” when the barrels are in a finished state, ready for setting up.

The first proof may be regarded as for the protection of the gunmaker, to secure him from the loss that would arise from bestowing his labour on an unsound barrel; the second proof protects the user.”

["On the Progress of the Small Arms Manufacture", by J. D. Goodman in Journal of the Statistical Society of London, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Dec 1865), p500-501.] Note: the author, John D. Goodman (1817-1900) served as chairman of the Birmingham Small Arms Company from 1863 til his death in 1900.

[Dave Fox]

Don't believe it's been mentioned in this exchange, but of critical importance in an old musket is the condition of the INTERIOR of the breech. The interior of the breech is subject to the least effective cleaning over the years and can, under some circumstances, even have standing muck therein loitering long periods of time. Without the sort of camera which is used to check the condition of ones colon, the only way to know is to pull or have pulled the breech plug. Remember: many of these survivors, when militarily obsolete, were acquired by undisciplined civilians and the last users were somebody's kid brother hunting rabbits. Several years ago I acquired an M.1863 Springfield in NRA pretty-darn-good condition. Bore light showed shootable rifling. I can't pull a breechplug without damaging the barrel, so I sent the barrel to Hoyt for his opinion. It came back lined: the breech interior was an irregular, enlarged cave, uncleanable, capable of harboring sparks, and weak.
Eggman: I was at Sill early in '68 when, training with our first M16s before shipping to Nam, one quite literally blew up a few firing points down the line. Story was that the weapons weren't being cleaned (early myth was it wasn't all that necessary) and a lieutenant's head rolled.