IOF shotguns

[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.

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 .

Reply: You seem to have a strange notion about proof masters' responsibility. They verify that dimensions are within specified parameters, and proof the gun. They neither make the guns, nor design them.

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.

Reply: An alloy of copper and zinc is brass. When it is ground into a coarse grain, or fine shavings with a rasp, it is called "spelter. Spelter is then mixed with a flux, and the resulting paste applied to the surfaces to be joined. The parts are then clamped, or secured with wire, and the part then heated until the spelter melts.

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.

Reply: I'm confident that those with the least bit of knowledge and comprehension will be able to do so.

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.

Reply: As something that also introduces a weakness, as you seem to think proof does.

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.

Reply: But they are fundamentally the same. Chemical compounds that burn rapidly and give off large quantities of gas. Where we draw the line between a low "explosion" and "rapid burn" is an arbitrary determination. Fast burning smokeless powders can also explode under the right condition.

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.

Reply: No proof makes a gun "safe". It just shows that the gun withstood stress higher than that produced by the intended service load. If you want to, you can have your gun proofed for a higher than the standard pressure limit. Would that make the gun less safe? Fine grain black powder works just fine in vintage breech loaders of small caliber and case capacity. That's what I use.

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"

Reply: I have. Did you forget to note that Greener published his treatise in 1881? He didn't even know what nitro-cellulose powders were. They weren't invented until 1884. The nitro compounds he is talking about are a whole different ball o' wax.

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.

Reply: Bully for you. Burrard's, a sportsman, published in the early thirties; and Greener's in 1881. Interesting historical read, but hardly germane in 1951, or today.

[Bespoke]

FYI

I have Burrad's revised edition of 1950.Somethings might be irrelevant today but most of them are not specially in part of world.