IOF shotguns

[Bespoke]

TwoRivers,

It is a common misconception that Nitro proof will make a Blackpowder gun stronger.

Black power and Nitro smokeless powders are fundamentally different.

Nitro smokeless powders burns quicker and the greater pressure at the "breech" and generate higher breech pressure but when it comes to Black powder they do not create such high pressures at chambers or breech because they Explode/Burn slowly but maintain higher pressure farther up the barrel.

I hope this explains why it is not good idea to Nitro proof the barrels of Black powder guns.

Nitro Proof was introduced in 1896 was an optional proof along with Definitive proof ,It was not compulsory because in early days of nitro powder many guns were sold which were not intended to use with the new nitro powders but then by early 1900's the use of nitro powders became general and majority of guns were declared to used with nitro powder and almost all high grade guns received nitro proof.

The Definitive proof was testing both the barrels of the gun in turn with charge of Black powder called T.P (Tower Proof) it was 178 grains of T.P and Nitro Proof on other hand was given by 116 grains of powder known as T.S.2. and in 1925 change was made by combining these two proofs into one using powder known as T.S.P

[TwoRivers]

Bespoke: "Proof" does not make a gun stronger. It simply shows that the gun withstood a certain charge without damage. The faster a powder burns, the quicker barrel pressure will drop; not the other way around.
Proofing with black powder was the traditional way. Black powder was a known quantity, whereas the early semi-smokeless and nitro powders were not, and was retained for provisional proof (before the barrel was finished) for quite some time. It took some experimenting with smokeless powders to establish proper proof charges, and develop pressure testing methods.

[xl_target]

Interesting observations about the competence of some of the personnel at the ammo factory in Khadki. Things have apparently always been that way.

In 1967, my dad was attending the College of Military Engineering in Kirkee (as it was called then). The house we lived in was quite close to the Ordnance factory. Shortly after we moved on to the next station, there was a huge explosion at the ammunition factory (1968? 1969?) and it blew the roof of the house clean off.

[shooter]

xl target i had no idea u had an indian connection.

bespoke a d two rivers. ready.. spar on. I for one not only am enjoying it but am learning a lot. at last an informative post ; a refreshing change from for sale and wanted items.

[Bespoke]

Bespoke: "Proof" does not make a gun stronger. It simply shows that the gun withstood a certain charge without damage.

That is exactly my point. Muzzleloader is made for different purpose than a Nitro gun and during nitro proofing it might not explode but the grain structure of the breech might be affected making it brittle would not be able to take much pressure afterwards.

Nitro proofing a Muzzleloader is not a good option I have found the article again and Proof master was of same view and it took him 3 or 4 days to convince the IOF officials before the change was made.

[abhrankash]

This is what we all have discussed in the earlier post that in the name of engineering what they are doing is just the work of Iron mongers.

Actually the person those who are working their are not having a passion for the work what they are doing neither the real knowledge of GD&T which is the most important thing when you have no of actuating parts assembled inside a small chamber.
They are their to make the bench mark pieces in the field of rifle sport and the civilian ballistic system.

Some of the design engineers are also their who don't know how to hold a pencil then its well understood about the fate of the commodity they produce.
most of the engineering work is being done by the GET trainee and other Junior level and no one use to supervise them.
Senior people are their just to take the credit of the work done by the juniors.

[sa_ali]

i did hear the similar complaint from Mr afazal, when i visited the Khairuddin. He told me the story on the same lines and went on to elaborate how senseless is the proof testing done, he is already fighting few complaint on the same line.

[TwoRivers]

Bespoke: "Proof" does not make a gun stronger. It simply shows that the gun withstood a certain charge without damage.

That is exactly my point. Muzzleloader is made for different purpose than a Nitro gun and during nitro proofing it might not explode but the grain structure of the breech might be affected making it brittle would not be able to take much pressure afterwards.

Nitro proofing a Muzzleloader is not a good option I have found the article again and Proof master was of same view and it took him 3 or 4 days to convince the IOF officials before the change was made.

Now, if proof testing would cause the "grain structure of the breech" to be weakened, that surely would be more of a concern with a nitro chambering with twice the pressure. So, proof testing should be abolished as it may weaken the gun?
I can see were proofing a gun built of low strength steel to nitro proof standards would not be the best idea; if the gun would never be subjected again to those pressures. But a nitro proof load generates 125 to 135% of the service pressure. And that you can achieve more closely controlled with nitro proof loads and modern equipment, than you ever could with black powder. Saying that the proof master objected tells us nothing, unless we know his reasoning. He presumably had a reason to object to the particular situation; but so far you have not revealed it to us.

Incidentally, steel becomes brittle trough repeated application of stress near its yield point, not a single application which does not even come close to the steel's yield strength.

Finally, a muzzle loader is made for exactly the same purpose as a breech loader, to launch a projectile by means of a chemical reaction rapidly generating gas as a propelling force.

[Sakobav]

bespoke

I know a person who will feel relieved for selling his IOF / BSA made barrels ( myth goes on ) he regretted parting with that Shotty..very good information and concerning too about the QA process ...do write more about this..

Carry on Two rivers and bespoke enjoying the discussion now only if Grumpy could join this shooter ping him
Cheers

[shooter]

done sir

[Bespoke]

Tworivers,

The widespread belief among people is that if a gun once passed proof it cannot possibly burst unless submitted to a pressure higher than that developed by the proof! The fact that barrel has once or twice stood pressure of 5 tons is no guarantee that it will withstand it for indefinite number of times pressure lower than 5 ton or that it can only burst when a 5 ton pressure is exceeded.


It is a common knowledge between gun makers and Proof masters that Proof can in fact weaken a gun by accentuating a flaw which may already exist. If you look under a microscope the grain structure of steel of a mediocre shotgun and then compare it with steel grain structure of High grade shotgun at breech end you will notice the difference and why High grade guns are more expensive than mediocre guns the heat treatment during brazing if not carried out carefully can make a gun weak and grain structure indicates that.

The Muzzleloaders were not made with that many considerations now let’s say the muzzleloader barrels were able to take enormous pressure during Provisional proof but if same amount of pressure was applied in definitive proof the action would give away and crack if not barrels.

Shooter,Ngrewal

Thank you for your encouragement.

[TwoRivers]

Tworivers,

"The widespread belief among people is that if a gun once passed proof it cannot possibly burst unless submitted to a pressure higher than that developed by the proof! The fact that barrel has once or twice stood pressure of 5 tons is no guarantee that it will withstand it for indefinite number of times pressure lower than 5 ton or that it can only burst when a 5 ton pressure is exceeded."

Reply: Can't argue with you on that one, since I don't know any one ignorant enough to believe that, or stupid enough not to figure out, that it can't be the case. However, 99 cases out of a hundred there is good reason why the barrel burst, though the shooter won't admit it. And it is not because the barrel was proofed. In any case, proof pressures are at 125-135% of service pressure, not so high as to blow up a correctly constructed gun.

"It is a common knowledge between gun makers and Proof masters that Proof can in fact weaken a gun by accentuating a flaw which may already exist. If you look under a microscope the grain structure of steel of a mediocre shotgun and then compare it with steel grain structure of High grade shotgun at breech end you will notice the difference and why High grade guns are more expensive than mediocre guns the heat treatment during brazing if not carried out carefully can make a gun weak and grain structure indicates that."


Reply:"common knowledge", got to love that. Great oxymoron. ( But here I have to admit, I don't know that many proof masters. They are very rare over here.) That's the reason why we proof guns, after all. To weed out the ones with hidden flaws. If the flaws were obvious, the gun wouldn't even come to proof. Not all makers use brazing to assemble the breech end of the barrels, many use solder and mechanical joining, which does not require heat high enough to affect the temper of the barrel steel. And yes, I am quite familiar with the grain structure of steels. Or other metals for that matter. A steel overheated through brazing heat will lose its temper and become softer. That will cause quicker wear, but will not make it more likely to burst. In all my years, I have not seen one barrel burst because of a flaw, caused by the steel being weakened through proof. Always due to an obstruction, and too thin barrel walls in older SXSs. War time rifle barrels can have slag inclusions in the steel of the barrel wall. But even those usually do not split without a bit of help. Only then you discover that there was a weak spot that held for thousands of rounds without complaining.

"The Muzzleloaders were not made with that many considerations now let’s say the muzzleloader barrels were able to take enormous pressure during Provisional proof but if same amount of pressure was applied in definitive proof the action would give away and crack if not barrels."

Reply: The action? Have you actually looked at a (traditional) muzzle loader? Or are you calling the breech plug screw "action". And in a modern in-line the action is not stressed. It too has a breech plug. You don't proof with "enormous" pressure during provisional proof, only with appropriate pressure. With enough powder you can blow up anything.

We are agreed then, guns should not be proofed, since proof may further weaken a weak spot. Rifling should be avoided, since a rifle barrel always splits in the grooves when it does. Obviously a weak spot induced during manufacture and further weakened through proof.

I thought we started out trying to determine why a muzzle loader should, or could, not be proofed with smokeless powder and modern methods. Apparently we did not.

Cheers.
Shooter,Ngrewal

Thank you for your encouragement.

[Bespoke]

"common knowledge", got to love that. Great oxymoron. ( But here I have to admit, I don't know that many proof masters. They are very rare over here.) That's the reason why we proof guns, after all.

Yes I agree that is why Americans have never been able to produce high grade shotguns and double rifles except one or two gun makers and why most of American shotguns are Heavier and chunkier for same reason

To weed out the ones with hidden flaws. If the flaws were obvious, the gun wouldn't even come to proof. Not all makers use brazing to assemble the breech end of the barrels, many use solder and mechanical joining, which does not require heat high enough to affect the temper of the barrel steel. And yes, I am quite familiar with the grain structure of steels. Or other metals for that matter. A steel overheated through brazing heat will lose its temper and become softer. That will cause quicker wear, but will not make it more likely to burst. In all my years, I have not seen one barrel burst because of a flaw, caused by the steel being weakened through proof. Always due to an obstruction, and too thin barrel walls in older SXSs. War time rifle barrels can have slag inclusions in the steel of the barrel wall. But even those usually do not split without a bit of help. Only then you discover that there was a weak spot that held for thousands of rounds without complaining.

Brazing is an expensive option and it is financially viable for most gun makers and it is a process which needs a experienced craftsman, No doubt most gun makers choose soldering etc.

The Bursts can be classified into 3 types

A) Burst caused by excessive pressure generated in cartridge case.
B) Burst caused by obstruction in the bore.
c)Burst due to abnormal weakness of metal of barrels or action

Since we are not concerned about A and B here the C can be further divided
1) Wear and Tear
2) Faulty workmanship or design
3) The use of Inferior metal
4) Flaws in the metal

I will like to Quote Maj Sir Gerald Burrad here

"A barrel considerably weaker than the normal can pass definitive proof without much difficulty .This proof charge may strain it,however,and weaken it; just as it is possible to test a gut salmon cast with a pull of 10lb and so strain it that it would not withstand another pull of more than 2lb".




"A barrel considerablty weaker than the normal can pass definitive proof without much diffculty .This proof charge may strain it.however,and weaken it;just as it is possible tp test a gut salmon cast with a pull of 10lb and so strain it that it would not withstand another pull of more than 2lb".

Reply: The action? Have you actually looked at a (traditional) muzzle loader? Or are you calling the breech plug screw "action". And in a modern in-line the action is not stressed. It too has a breech plug. You don't proof with "enormous" pressure during provisional proof, only with appropriate pressure. With enough powder you can blow up anything.

I should have called Locks and stock of the muzzleloader.

We are agreed then, guns should not be proofed, since proof may further weaken a weak spot. Rifling should be avoided, since a rifle barrel always splits in the grooves when it does. Obviously a weak spot induced during manufacture and further weakened through proof.

I think a proof can further weaken a weak spot YES! Where does rifling come into this.. tomorrow you would suggest that Quality testing of diesel engines should be done with Petrol.


Proofing can weaken at same time strengthen a gun with process like Auto-frettage where a proof can stretch inner layers of chamber beyond their elastic limit when this occurs barrel will be much stronger than it would have been has the proof pressure been slightly lower. This being said I don’t think proof testing is done to make a gun stronger or weaker it is to test the safety of the weapon.

I thought we started out trying to determine why a muzzle loader should, or could, not be proofed with smokeless powder and modern methods. Apparently we did not.

We are still on that topic and I am making every possible attempt to provide readers with a logic that Muzzle loading guns should not be proof tested with Nitro powders and our topic started with technology of 1950's and not present say modern methods.

[TwoRivers]

So it's the proof masters who design and build the high grade shotguns? Gee, I really didn't know that! We'll have to import some.

Brass may be more expensive than lead, but the amount used for joining the barrels at the breech isn't going to be a cost factor. On the other hand, the machining and fitting of the mechanical joint adds to the cost. And controlling the heat is not a problem anymore.
Well, you'll have to keep on attempting, you haven't presented any logical argument yet. As to "Locks and stocks", how are they going to be damaged if the barrel didn't split? How is nitro proof going to harm them?
A diesel engine won't run on gasoline, which in any case has less energy than diesel fuel. Nice try, though.
Rifling? Well, isn't it all about safety?, and just like proof, it weakens the barrel

And what exactly is the connection between an overstretched fishing leader, and a shotgun proofed at an appropriate pressure? It doesn't matter whether you proof with black powder or with nitro, as long as your proof load produces the appropriate pressure. While you can't generate the pressure with black powder that you can achieve with nitro; you can tailor the nitro pressure to anything you pretty much want or need.
Now we have muzzle loaders that can be used with nitro powder, as well as black. Should they be proofed with black powder only?

This is not going anyplace. Believe what you want. You probably have better things to do than spending long hours on the net, trying to come up with a logical argument.

[Bespoke]

So it's the proof masters who design and build the high grade shotguns? Gee, I really didn't know that! We'll have to import some.

Yes you have to Import some I guess for proof houses set standard for the gunmakers and that does affect the quality of guns produced not to hard to understand .

Brass may be more expensive than lead, but the amount used for joining the barrels at the breech isn't going to be a cost factor. On the other hand, the machining and fitting of the mechanical joint adds to the cost. And controlling the heat is not a problem anymore.

The substance is called "Spelter"a mixture of copper and zinc and is kind of brass. Since we are talking of shotguns back in days where there were no Automated brazing machines the major cost factor was Labour and most skilled were the highest paid and top quality brazing was/and linked with high grade shotguns.

Well, you'll have to keep on attempting, you haven't presented any logical argument yet. As to "Locks and stocks", how are they going to be damaged if the barrel didn't split? How is nitro proof going to harm them?

I will leave that to readers that who presented the Logical arguments and who carried on the discussion without any logical arguments.

A diesel engine won't run on gasoline, which in any case has less energy than diesel fuel. Nice try, though.
Rifling? Well, isn't it all about safety?, and just like proof, it weakens the barrel

This did not have anything to do with energy but my point was they are fundamentally different .I don’t know why you brought rifling into this..I would like this discussion to remain sensible.

And what exactly is the connection between an overstretched fishing leader, and a shotgun proofed at an appropriate pressure?

It was an example to illustrate simple concept and It makes perfect sense to me.

It doesn't matter whether you proof with black powder or with nitro, as long as your proof load produces the appropriate pressure. While you can't generate the pressure with black powder that you can achieve with nitro; you can tailor the nitro pressure to anything you pretty much want or need.
Now we have muzzle loaders that can be used with nitro powder, as well as black. Should they be proofed with black powder only?

I have been trying to say that they are fundamentally different.

This topic started with view of Muzzleloaders in 1950's not modern Muzzleloaders. Nitro proofing doesnt make a Black powder gun safe try using a fine grain powder in vintage breechloaders at same time they can be used in Muzzleloaders.

My point is Nitro guns should be proved with Nitro Proofing and Black powder guns should be proved with black powder charge and is what Mr. A.G Harrison, W.W Greener and people who drafted the Rules of proof thought I think that should be enough.

If you still have doubts please read pages 308,564,572 of W.W Greener's "The gun and its development"

This is not going anyplace. Believe what you want. You probably have better things to do than spending long hours on the net, trying to come up with a logical argument.

I have to agree, Yes I do have better things to do. As far as spending time on internet to come up with a logical answer is concerned we can talk about this on phone if you like just because I cannot reply immediately to your posts doesn’t mean I am looking for answers on net, but I am not afraid to say that I did consult "The Modern Shotgun" By Major Sir Gerald Burrad and W.W Greener's "The Gun and its development" today.