Additional commentary regarding the 1891 Birmingham Proof House Trial in Frederick Toms'
Sporting Guns and Gunpowder, 1896
'Experiments On the Strength of Gunbarrels' starting on p.9
http://books.google.com/books?id=inQ...AJ&pg=PA16&lpg
"These experiments serve to show what a very large margin of strength there is in a good gun barrel, when ordinary charges are used. They also tend to prove that the brazing process (if properly carried out) does not injure the metal to any appreciable extent. It has frequently been alleged, by opponents of the proof test, that, although the barrels may pass through the proof without any apparent injury, yet the large charge strains the metal to such an extent that the barrels are likely to burst afterwards when used with ordinary charges. The fallacy of this argument appears obvious when the fact is taken into consideration that the barrels which gave way earliest under these tests had withstood the strains of nearly thirty successive trials, the first of which was rather more severe than the definitive proof charge, and the average of the whole was about four times as great as the regulation proof; while the steel barrels were tested forty times, with charges averaging nearly five times as much as the ordinary proof-charge.
Taking the cumulative grain test, as calculated in the Birmingham experiments, the strains undergone by each of the two steel barrels were rather over
110 times as great as that of the definitive proof test; and those of the
Damascus were rather over 120 times the definitive proof in the case of the barrel that had undergone the brazing process, and nearly 130 times in the barrel that were not brazed. So that, although the steel barrels showed the greater amount of endurance, the strength of the Damascus was so much in excess of all ordinary requirements that no fear need be felt of their giving way when the work is properly done."
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...EK8OtPYVA/edit
Threaded Mode