Drew apologies accepted. The shaft we are talking is the shaft closest to the forearm iron. In English boxlocks that shaft is used as the pivot point for the cocking levers and in some cases is also used to trip the ejectors. If the gun in question is actually marked W. Richards rather than Westley Richards its quality of manufacture and materials is questionable.

Part 14? Courtesy of Boxall & Edmiston

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL.../414095486.jpg

Drew, the gun you have depicted is a higher quality sideplated boxlock with ejectors. Low cost English and continental guns tend to have the axial shaft in the center of the hinge pin because its cheaper and does not require a fixture to fabricate.

First off, was the gun in question, in proof?
And had the chambers been measured? In England, if the chambers had been opened to 2.75" the gun should have been re-proved and so stamped. I understand the English will not even accept a gun (with lengthened chambers) for re-proof, if the forcing cones have been altered. A look at the barrel flats and measuring the right chamber would give us more info.

I believe the issues raised regarding questionable wall thickness, axial shaft location, action flat length, etc. are moot points considering the location of the rupture of the subject gun (original poster's picture) having most obviously been caused by an obstruction and therefor not the fault of the gun or the load.






.

Craig, Are you saying 'AXIAL SHAFT' or "AXLE SHAFT?

Thank you for the explaination. So, if “eyeballing” is allowed, to my eye, all three of the barrel failures that Drew evidenced have wall thickness that “looks” thinner than the subject gun.

Edgar, axial since it doesn't turn. Dean we've disagreed before. Mark, your looking at different pictures and you haven't picked out a constant for comparison or have you? Mark, your body your choice, my body my choice.

Craig: Tis' the season for good will. We're all friends here and just trying to understand.

You used a term "axial shaft located in the receiver" which I've never heard nor can I find anywhere. Double guns have an "action" and the barrels are not part of the "receiver". Are you saying that Shawn's friend's barrels burst starting at the shaft? Does the gun have a shaft? Do Parkers an axial shaft?

The wall thickness recommendations of Hugh Lomas and Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives (C.I.P) are here, and you are most free to disagree. Yes, wall thickness of .068" at 6" would be normal
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...vwLYc-kGA/edit
What are your recommendations based on 50 years as a machinist and having disassembled 30 British boxlocks?

We can all guess at the wall thickness at the burst, but possibly the Shawn could simply measure the proximal and distal walls to settle the issue?

Drew, here it goes for the last time on this subject, look at the pictures of the explosions you provided. None of your explosions show a pattern and most of your explosions extend for an extended length of the bore. The W. Richards in question has the explosion begin about 6" from the breech is perpendicular to bore and follows the circumference of the barrel to the soldiered joint and ends with no further apparent collateral damage to the beyond the 2" exploded area. Axial shaft is my term, so far the Brits have not adopted it. Drew what recommendations do you want? Are you asking about a 410 ga. or an 8 ga. or something in between, Whitworth steel or wrought steel, RST loads or somebodies unknown handloads, your mint Parker or a used up Crescent Arms double. Wonder why opinions might differ?