Wondering ?????

[Bill Murphy]

Drew has a good request, but there is some stretching when a barrel bulges or ruptures and you have to be careful where you take your measurements.

[C.O.B.]

I'll try to get the measurements requested. Steve is in Montana currently.

[Drew Hause]

Thanks again Rich. Please also confirm the chamber length and bore measurements just proximal to the bulges.

The issue is not to dispute Steve's statement, nor to assign blame, but to reach some conclusion as to the cause of the barrel failure.

It is my sincere hope that this will not end as most posts regarding barrel/gun failures, at least on doublegunBBS and trapshooters.com, have ended; with no definitive, or at least learned, explanation. Modern guns sent to the maker for a failure analysis and metallurgical study disappear, and when litigation is involved, details of any settlement are made confidential.

Something like this would be definitive



To be clear, I have found no Specification Diagram for wall thickness from any turn-of-the-century U.S. maker. That information would be invaluable to those of us measuring wall thickness and providing an opinion regarding originality, and safety.

[edgarspencer]

This got my curiosity up, so I measured a set of 0 frame barrels from a 16ga. DH
I was surprised at that variation.

[John Taddeo]

.016 .... not that tiny...

[Drew Hause]

Thank you Edgar. It appears the pin is measuring the forcing cone wall thickness? Could you please post the end of the chamber measurements?

It has been my experience that the thickness at the forcing cone frequently exceeds that of the end of the chamber. The angle of the forcing cone is more acute than the external taper of the barrel; as illustrated



This may not apply to small gauge and continental game guns, and does NOT apply to guns with chambers lengthened.

And so we all don't have to go looking. End of the chamber measurements.

http://parkerguns.org/forums/showthr...096#post158096

http://parkerguns.org/forums/showthr...?t=1565&page=4

English:
James Purdey (1898) 12b., 2.5" chambers: ≥ 0.100.
James Woodward (1909) 12b., 2.5" chambers: ≥ 0.098
James Woodward (1909) 12b., 2.5" chambers: ≥ 0.103
Boss (1897-8) 12b., 2.5" chambers: ≥ 0.090
Westley Richards 12b., 2.5" chambers: ≥ 0.090
James MacNaughton (1895) 12b., 2.5" chambers: ≥ 0.095
Wm. Pape (1898) 12b., 2.75" chambers: ≥ 0.100
EM Reilly (1887-1904) 12b., 2.5" chambers: ≥ 0.091
Henri Egg (1870) 12b., 2.5" chambers: ≥ 0.108
WH Monks (1875-87) 12b., 2.5" chambers: ≥ 0.116
WC Scott (1905-6) 16b., 2.75" chambers: ≥ 0.105
Francotte (1938) 12b., 2 5/8" chambers: ≥ 0.098
Westley Richards (1905) 20b., 2.5" chambers: ≥ 0.098
WW Greener (1922) 20b., 2.75" chambers: ≥ 0.098

Belgian:
Francotte (1894-5) 12b., 2.5" chambers: ≥ 0.085
Francotte (1896) 12b., 2.5" chambers: ≥ 0.085
Francotte (1930) 20b., 2.5" chambers: ≥ 0.095

French:
Verney Carron (1950s) 12b., 2 5/8" chambers: ≥ 0.100

German:
Wilhelm Brenneke (1902) 12b., 2.5" chambers: ≥ 0.110

[John Taddeo]

Would it be safe to say the weakest point in the illustration is the beginning of the forcing cone ???

[edgarspencer]

Originally Posted by Drew Hause

Thank you Edgar. It appears the pin is measuring the forcing cone wall thickness? Could you please post the end of the chamber measurements?

As Requested. I could get varying results are different points, but still at the same depth, however I took these at the same points as the previous two pictures. None were lower than these measurements.