Yes that is true. I was thinking about the failure at weld lines. But I should have read more closely before saying that.

Some here have no doubt been following the thread on DoubleGun, but here is the short version of the Metallographic Analysis from METL, and my conclusions:

I believe the burst was caused by an obstruction, likely the shot wad from the previous shell, lodged in and just past the forcing cone, caused by a light powder drop in reloading and incomplete ignition from the very low temperature. There may have been a pre-existing bulge also.

1. Did the barrel fail related to low cycle fatigue? NO

The fracture surface exhibited a mixture of ductile overload (plastic deformation with both tensile overload and shear) and transgranular cleavage indicating a ductal failure mode with rapid failure. The cleavage failure appeared to form preferentially in the iron component. No evidence of fatigue failure was observed; there were no striations on the fracture surface.

2. Did the barrel fracture at a ribband edge weld, between iron and steel rod welds, or within a rod? NO

The fracture did not appear to trace along the ribband (spiral) welds. Some cracking was seen along the individual bands within the crolle pattern, but this was not always the case.

3. Did the barrel burst related to interlaminar rust, inclusions, voids, or embrittlement? NO

No evidence of embrittlement was observed. There were a large number of inclusions but there was no apparent fracture jumping from one inclusion to another. The composition of the inclusions was predominantly silicon, phosphorus, and sulfur ie. slag.
No voids or interlaminar rust were observed.

While the microstructure was banded, and the bands had different grain size, inclusion content, and inclusion form (globular in the iron and linear in the steel)... “the overall material appeared to be a single piece of metal...(without)...microstructural defects.”

Chemical composition was similar to AISI 1005 low alloy steel. The low range of tensile strength is 40,000 psi, but may be heat treated to much higher numbers.


METL now has 17 barrel segments (14 pattern welded and 3 fluid steel) for tensile strength testing, and the Hunter Arms Armor steel section will also have composition analysis so we'll KNOW what at least one c. 1900 tube was made of, and can compare it to the barrels in Dave's study.

Thank You Drew,Very interesting reading. My article was sent off to Dean today for publishing in the next Parker Pages.

This goes along with the topic of this thread as well as another article in the Parker Pages a few issues ago about barrel steels in Parker barrels.

I just came into this set of 2 frame 12g barrels that are NOS, unchambered and 32" in length. No serial number length. They have bottom ribs, loop, spacers and keels in place, but no top rib installed yet. The barrel flat has the blank circle on it as discussed in that PP article. Letter was stamped in on e the grade of gun was determined.

Attachment 34457

These barrels are going to go on a check-hook lifter frame I have to upgrade into an A or AA grade.

Dean was kind enough to send me the Summer Parker Pages with Dave's Composition Analysis study. It is probably important to date the barrels as composition very likely changed following the advancements during and after WWI. It can be said with some degree of confidence that at least turn-of-the-century Hunter Arms rough forged fluid steel tubes were from a different Belgian source.

Any misunderstanding as to the Belgian source of pre-WWI tubes should be resolved by the following:
Hearings, Vol. 14, United States 60th Congress 2nd Session, November, 1908.
We further request that shotguns barrels in single tubes forged rough bored…be continued on the free list as at present, because their manufacture or production can not be economically undertaken in this country.
Hunters Arms co., Fulton, N.Y., Ithaca Gun Co., Ithaca N.Y., Parker Bros., Meriden, Conn., Lefever Arms Co., Syracuse, N.Y., J. Stevens Arms & Tool Co., Chicopee Falls, Mass., N.R. Davis & Son, Assonet, Mass., Baker Gun & Forging Co., Batavia, N.Y.

A single 1898 L.C. Smith Armour Steel tube was evaluated by optical emission spectroscopy (OES): Carbon content 0.47 weight percent is comparable to AISI 1045 Plain Carbon Steel, but with slightly higher sulfur (.075) and phosphorus (.112) content similar to AISI 1211 rephosphorized and resulfurized steel.

For comparison, a Russian source reported Krupp Fluss Stahl as having:
0.45% Carbon
Up to 0.035% Phosphorus
Up to 0.035% Sulphur

Published tensile strength for 1045 is 80,000 – 90,000 psi.
Published tensile strength for 1018 Low Carbon (Mild) Steel is 64,000 psi.
Measured tensile strength of this Armour sample was 101,000 psi.
Anxious to see Eldon's tensile strength results of the samples in the future.

I'm still hoping to evaluate samples of the other Hunter Arms named steels, and also the Armory Steel used by Meriden Fire Arms and Crescent, and will report back.

I have only shot my GH damascus gun a few times and with RST shells. Since it is F&F I have not found too many reasons to shoot it. I shoot a Parker SBT at trap, it has a Titanic barrel. My other damascus gun is a 1900 L.C. Smith O grade. It's bored IC and Mod. I've shot it at skeet with RST shells and regular Win, and RIO trap loads.

My two damascus guns have very nice barrels. The bore of the Elsie is a bit rough, and the Parker GH bore is like new. I think it has been honed.

Think about it. How many damascus guns have you heard about letting go lately? How about none. We do, from time to time hear about shotgun barrels exploding, but it is usually modern liquid steel barrels who blew do to an obstruction.

Moral of the story? I'm going to shoot my Parker and Elsie damascus barreled guns with confidence. I don't think I'll put Mag or high base shells in them. I have other old guns that'll handle higher power loads. A Fox Sterlingworth for one...Also an ancient Browing Auto 5.

Still hoping to accumulate more pre-WWI fluid steel samples for tensile strength testing and composition analysis.

More information:

The Sampling and Chemical Analysis of Iron and Steel, 1915
By Oswald Bauer, Eugen Deiss, William Thomas Hall
http://books.google.com/books?id=03w6AAAAMAAJ&dq
p. 96, 103 Basic Bessemer steel
Carbon 0.07 - 0.09%
Manganese 0.40 – 0.48%
Phosphorus 0.05 – 0.08%
Sulfur 0.05 - .07%

Remington “Decarbonized Steel” and Parker “Plain Steel” were Bessemer process steel, as was Winchester Standard Ordnance “Rolled Steel” and Marlin “Special Rolled Steel”. A 1925 Union Hardware & Metal Co., Los Angeles listing for the Crescent Empire No. 60 states “Decarbonized Steel” barrels. Crescent barrels were labeled "Armory Steel".

Walt Snyder graciously shared a 1919 Ithaca Gun Co. letter from A.P. Curtis, General Manager requested tensile strength testing on a section “cut from a barrel made in Belgium” to be performed by E.J. Stormer of Racine, Wisconsin. The letter did not indicate if the barrels were “Smokeless Powder Steel” used on the Field grade, also commonly found with the ‘LLH’ mark of Laurent Lochet-Habran, “Fluid Steel” or “Nitro Steel” used on the No. 1 and No. 1 1/2, Cockerill Steel used on the No. 1 Special, or “Best Fluid Steel” and Krupp on higher grades.
Tensile strength was reported to be “about 70,000” psi.
Carbon .32%
Manganese .78%
Phosphorus .018%
Sulphur .033%
No chromium nor nickel

Winchester Nickel Steel from Bethlehem Steel Co. Jan. 1900
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yzh...J&pg=PA181&lpg
Carbon .50%
Phosphorous .026%
Manganese .77%
Sulphur .037%
Nickel 4.0%
Tensile Strength 106,900 psi

Nickel Steel in Halcomb Steel Co. “Catalogue and Hints on Steel”, 1913
Carbon .20% = tensile strength 82,000 psi
.30% = tensile strength 93,500 psi
.40% = tensile strength 94,000 psi
Manganese .50-.80%
Phosphorous and Sulfur – not over .04%
Nickel 3.25 – 3.75%

Modern AISI 4140 Chrome Moly Steel
Carbon .38 - .43%
Phosphorous .035%
Manganese .75 – 1.0%
Sulphur .04%
Chromium .80 – 1.10%
Molybdenum .15 - .25%

Modern AISI 1018
Carbon .14 - .20%
Phosphorous Below .04%
Manganese .60 – .90%
Sulphur Below .05%

DAVE: with your permission I could add your 4 barrel results to the thread

Go right ahead Doc.

Thank you Dave.


Sample of Parker barrels analyzed by Optical Emission Spectroscopy (OES) and published in the Summer 2014 Parker Pages by Dave Suponski

Titanic Steel (likely pre-WWI)
Carbon .32%
Manganese .70%
Phosphorus .033%
Sulphur .077%
Nickel .078%
Chromium .031%
Molybdenum .003%

Trojan Steel (likely pre-WWI)
Carbon .35%
Manganese .84%
Phosphorus .03%
Sulphur .025%
Nickel .04%
Chromium .02%
Molybdenum .004%

Vulcan Steel
Carbon .27%
Manganese .68%
Phosphorus .062%
Sulphur .052%
Nickel .01%
Chromium .008%
Molybdenum .002%

Parker Steel (1926)
Carbon .09%
Manganese .83%
Phosphorus .094%
Sulphur .074%
Nickel .007%
Chromium .014%
Molybdenum .003%

Tried to post a side by side comparison of all the steel samples for which I have results, but the format doesn't work. I have it as a Word Doc and would be happy to send by an e-mail attachment if someone would like it
drewhausemd@yahoo.com

1905 Krupp Chrome Nickel Steel Brand "D"
0.5% Carbon
3.26% Chromium
0.16% Manganese
1.26% Nickel
0.04% Phosphorus
0.11% Silicon
0.03% Sulphur

Krupp Fluss Stahl :
0.45% Carbon
0.035% (up to) Phosphorus
0.70% Manganese
0.25% Silicon
0.035% (up to) Sulphur

Krupp Special (Spezial-Gewehr-Lauf-Stahl) patented 1896:
0.61% Carbon
0.04% Phosphorous
0.65% Manganese
0.04% Sulphur