Parker Fluid Steels
 

The following technical explanation may be boring or of no interest to some readers, if so just pass it by.

Questions often arise concerning the various fluid steels used by Parker; Vulcan, Parker Steel, Titanic, Acme and Jos. Whitworth. The questions seen here concern 1) whether one steel is "stronger" than another, and 2) whether there are any differences between them, some going so far as to conjecture that Parker merely called the same steel by different names for some kind of marketing ploy.

As to the strength issue, I know of no tests that have been done that demonstrates that one fluid steel ruptures at a different pressure than another or is more resistant to wear than another. We do know that Parker proofed all their barrels alike, Damascus and fluid, and all had to meet Parker standards, which standards were consistent with pressures that were later adopted by the Small Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute ( SAAMI), and Parker increased proof pressures as SAAMI proof pressures increased. As to wear issues, previously published in this forum has been a Parker letter to an inquiring customer who was considering buying a C grade. As to the C steels, Parker ranked Acme, Bernard then Damascus in order of wear resistance.

Concerning the different fluid steels, we know that Parker procured them from different manufacturers, and lists of those providers have been published here. The alloy compositions were proprietary to the manufacturers and the precise alloys are not known, however, barrel steels fell within certain ranges of components and variations were slight. The barrels steels were purchased at different costs by Parker, and we have lists of how much they cost, starting at Vulcan and progressing to Whitworth. We sometimes hear of speculations that the fluid steels were all the same, but in my opinion, the procurement from different suppliers at different costs is inconsistent with the steels being the same. I know of no recent metallurgical analyses of the various steels.

There is additional evidence of difference. Barrel refinishers will tell you that the higher grade fluid steels will take a better, finer polish than the lower grades when using identical polishing techniques and grits. To me this demonstrates the finer grain structure of the higher grade steels.

To illustrate this point, I have attached several photos of two barrels, the top being a set of Parker Steel barrels from a P and the bottom a set of Titanics from a D. These were finished the same, and the difference in sheen, though subtle, is present. The difference is more pronounced between Vulcans and Acmes, but you can see it between even these PS and T steels. Of course this makes no difference to rupture or wear resistance, only to appearance.

Mr. Day this is a great subject. I could not imagine why anyone would not find it interesting. It would not be that hard to determine a chemical make up of the different steels and the grain structure. I could do it. The problem I am guessing would be in procuring all the steels from damaged barrels. It is not every day you run into barrels fit to destroy and who in there right mind would destroy a perfectly good set of barrels. I have been looking off and on for a set of Damascus barrels that are beyond repair for some research but to no avail so far.

eldon i hope you find some barrels to test some day...charlie

I find this fasinating. I would like to know if the different companys made their barrels to parker standadrs and compasison or wether parker bought barrels acording to the other companys standards and composition.

Several years ago I asked for samples in a Parker Pages article and procured a nice sampling. I sent these samples to two gentlemen for testing to no avail. I am working on getting the samples back from at least one of them. The samples that were sent out were Trojan Steel, Vulcan Steel both early production and late production, Titanic Steel both early and late,Acme Steel and Peerless Steel. This isn't over yet. Stay tuned.

Very interesting information that inquiring minds want to know. Thanks Bruce for bring to light a topic I have wondered about since I began an interest in Parkers.

Bruce, I have seen two coils of finished steel that had literally come from the same ladle possess quite different properties after processing, most noticeably the surface. I'm not going to bet on the chemistry, I will put my money on the process in which the steel was made as being the major difference. Great idea for a thread, but I have to wonder how it would be taken if the barrels all shared a basic chemistry of mild steel ???

Bruce, Great topic, I have often wondered if the different steels was just a marketing ploy, used by Parker to demand a higher price for the goods, would be great if some of thase steels could be put to the test, Gary

John, as I said, barrel steels fall within certain ranges of components and variations are slight. It may be the process , it may be the alloys that make the difference, I don't know.

As Dave mentioned, several attempts have been made to identify the differences. Remembering undergraduate metallurgy days, I think it is possible if a testing lab is available. However, there is a certain frustration in these efforts because several people have volunteered over the years to run tests, samples have been gathered and provided, and nothing has come of it.

Thanks Bruce. This is something I have wondered about as well. My theory is there is little or no difference between grades of Parker's fluid steel barrel composition. The designation Trojan, Vulcan, Titanic, etc. was a carry over during Parker Bros transition from damascus steel to fluid steel. Higher and finer grades of damascus are readily apparent and easily seen. A gun with a Plain Twist bbl wouldn't be expected to command the price of a gun with Bernard bbls. So when Parker Bros decided they would offer fluid steel bbls, Sales and Marketing types realized that from a value added standpoint it would be easier to justify the price of higher grade guns if they were fitted with what appeared to be higher grades of fluid steel. Customers just looking at the fluid steel bbls could see no difference between grades like they could with the damascus bbls. Even today we have to read the rib to know what the barrels were designated. So, that's my theory and I'm sticking to it: little to no difference in bbl composition. Fluid steel was simply a cost cutting measure over damascus steel and had to be justified. If someone did the actual research and testing and wrote it up I'm sure it would be published in Parker Pages as well as the DGJ. If, someone wants to send me samples and the PGCA agreed to pay for the tests there is a company near where I live that could lay the matter to rest.