![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visit Mike Franzen's homepage! | |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | ||||||
|
![]()
Mike is correct - opinions vary widely. Suffice to say that your barrels need to have sufficient wall thickness with no flaws, dents, bulges or severe pits. You need to know exactly what your chamber length is. Stay away from "magnum" loads or shell lengths more than 1/8" longer than your chambers.
|
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |||||||
|
![]() Quote:
Good question which is often debated by knowledgeable people and also by those who believe everything that their great uncle told them. Oh, then that are those who read in in a magazine or a website so it must be true... Good grief for most of those experts don't know the difference between yield and tensile strength, let alone what neuberization is. The above rant stated, I have vintage guns with Damascus barrels which have the minimum barrel wall thickness throughout the entire length of the barrels appropriate for SAAMI maximum mean working pressure loads, i.e. modern factory loads. I also own guns with fluid steel barrels which are thin enough at high pressure areas that even a risk tolerant shooter as I will not shoot over 8000 PSI loads in them. In factory ammo RST loads are around 8000 psi. If the above is Greek to you then please read, learn to measure your own barrels, do the math and only then make an informed decision that you can live with. PS: If shooting old guns scares anyone please know that jet aircraft engines would tear themselves apart if it were not for neuberization of the stress. The stess in these engines, like the ones on passenger jets, exceed the ultimate tensile strength of the rotating parts. ![]() Mark
__________________
Don't hunt with a gun that will embarrass your dog! USMC Retired USMC Distinguished Marksman USMC Distinguished Pistol Shot NRA Benefactor - Ring of Freedom member |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |||||||
|
![]() Quote:
![]() (all tongue in cheek) |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dean Romig For Your Post: |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | ||||||
|
![]()
These might help
http://parkerguns.org/forums/showthread.php?t=12593 https://docs.google.com/a/damascuskn...QzuYRuLvs/edit Scroll down to: Damascus Mythology & Reality Damascus Quality Barrel Strength and the 1891 Birmingham Proof House Report Turn-of-the-Century Shotshells, Powder & Ballistics Barrel Evaluation Recommendations and Non-Destructive Testing
__________________
http://sites.google.com/a/damascuskn...e.com/www/home Last edited by Drew Hause; 01-17-2015 at 02:50 PM.. |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The Following User Says Thank You to Drew Hause For Your Post: |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | ||||||
|
![]()
Thanks guys! I should have been more specific with what I call modern ammo, what I meant was the basic shells we use today, not the crazy stuff thats out there now. Would Parker special steel, Titanic steel, Vulcan steel and Trojan steel be classified as the same type of steel just different grade of gun? For fear of the unkown and lack of qualified gunsmiths Downeast I'm avoiding damacus and twist barrels.
|
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | ||||||
|
![]()
Well Rick - send all those Damascus and Twist barreled Parkers my way please
![]() Dave Suponski can better answer your question about the subtle differences between the fluid-pressed steels you mention. |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | ||||||
|
![]()
1. No one on the internet can tell you if YOUR barrels are safe. And it is very unlikely that anyone can tell you what abuse/modification your barrels and action have endured since the gun was new 100 years ago. NO vintage double should be used without an evaluation by a double gun specialist.
Please see http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/view...p?f=5&t=366087 2. From the Parker Brothers 1893 Catalog “Our guns are bored on the latest improved system for shooting Nitros, or Smokeless Powder, and all our guns are tested with some one of the most approved makes, and a tag accompanies each gun, giving the results of such a (pattern) test.” Parker Bros. did not differentiate between fluid steel and pattern welded barrels. I choose to believe them. 3. 12g Parker SN 71792 c. 1891 was patterned with 1 1/4 oz. No. 7 and 42 grains DuPont. A 1900 Parker hang tag states that 12g 2 5/8” chambered guns were patterned at 40 yds. in a 30” circle using 2 3/4” shells with 1 1/8 oz. No. 7 chilled shot and 40 grains (3 1/4 Dram) of DuPont Bulk Smokeless powder. (Courtesy of Bruce Day) 4. The 1933 edition of ”Smokeless Shotgun Powders” by Wallace Coxe and E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. reported the LUP pressure for 1 1/4 oz. 3 Dram Eq. of DuPont Bulk Smokeless at 9,600 psi. Modern piezoelectric transducer pressure would be about 10% higher. 5. Dave's study clearly showed that the chemical composition of the 4 Parker named barrels (Titanic, Trojan, Vulcan, Parker steels) was not the same. 6. Without tensile strength testing, we can not know, but may assume the tensile strength of the Parker fluid steel barrels are at least that of a specimen of Hunter Arms Armor (lowest grade) steel which was 101,000 psi. Modern AISI 4140 Chrome-Molybdenum (shotgun barrel) Steel tensile strength is 95,000 - 100,000 psi. IF, as I believe, "Parker Steel" is Cold Rolled Decarbonized Steel, it likely has a tensile strength similar to Winchester Standard Ordnance (Bessemer) “Rolled” Steel of 66,000- 69,000 psi. 7. Loads within the pressure levels recommended by Parker Bros. MAY however generate recoil that may harm now 100 year old stock wood. Some choose to glasbed the head of their stocks if planning on using 1 1/4 oz. 3 1/4 dram loads. Get your Parker evaluated Rick, then enjoy your treasure ![]()
__________________
http://sites.google.com/a/damascuskn...e.com/www/home Last edited by Drew Hause; 01-18-2015 at 09:51 AM.. |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Drew Hause For Your Post: |
![]() |
|
|