oliver90owner Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 The Field reviews the Hatsan in the latest copy this month. Highly praised. Yes, but..... many reviews are biased - something related to advertising revenue? A bit like giving references for people applying for jobs - one is not allowed to be totally honest on all occasions! Always 'read between the lines', is my advice, when checking these out. Look for things that are not reported on, but seem relevant to yourself. These details are often omitted on purpose! Yes, some might say I may be too cynical, but I'm not stupid. Read reviews carefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 No it doesnt, as far as proofing is concerned. Providing the barrels pass proof the wall thickness is deemed adequate. Many thanks. I posted in relation to HDAV's Post #16. If you remove anything from the outside because of, say, surface corrosion, which reduces the wall thickness it would appear that there is no need for re-proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 I'm surprised Edgar bros don't want it back for inspection Why would they, the picture posted by DM at the top of this thread was accepted by them and they have arranged for a new barrel to be sent out that has satisfied the owner! End of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 (edited) Many thanks. I posted in relation to HDAV's Post #16. If you remove anything from the outside because of, say, surface corrosion, which reduces the wall thickness it would appear that there is no need for re-proof. From the Birmingham proof house: Arms previously proved and bearing apparently valid proof marks are deemed unproved if the barrels have been enlarged in the bore beyond certain defined limits or if the barrel or action has been materially weakend in other respects. The offence in dealing in unproved arms is committed by the seller, not by an unwitting purchaser. That would appear to me that even taking material from the outside of the barrel could take the gun out of proof. Edited May 21, 2015 by fenboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 From the Birmingham proof house: Arms previously proved and bearing apparently valid proof marks are deemed unproved if the barrels have been enlarged in the bore beyond certain defined limits or if the barrel or action has been materially weakend in other respects. The offence in dealing in unproved arms is committed by the seller, not by an unwitting purchaser. That would appear to me that even taking material from the outside of the barrel could take the gun out of proof. Precisely, and thanks. The very point I was making and which HDAV rightly picked up on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliver90owner Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 And the proof pressure is where? 9'' from the breech? The pressure at the muzzle is zilch in comparison to the test point - unless something untoward occurs, such as a blockage. Bulging from steel is more than likely the forces created by the choke section trying to compress the shot, not so much excessive gas pressure, certainly not over and above the test pressure at that point. Think here steel does not bulge cylinder barrels (no choke), although the steel shot could scour the barrel all the way along it (steel will not scratch chrome, due to the Mohs scale of hardness). This failure is either down to poor steel or perhaps a previous failed choke, which has been used for steel, that has stressed the thinner section where the choke was fitted. I would be looking at the thickness left in the tube, after boring for the chokes, as one area for manufacturing concern. Without knowing the manufacture process, I would fancy the failed choke option, especially as the real history is unclear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 And the proof pressure is where? 9'' from the breech? The pressure at the muzzle is zilch in comparison to the test point - unless something untoward occurs, such as a blockage. Bulging from steel is more than likely the forces created by the choke section trying to compress the shot, not so much excessive gas pressure, certainly not over and above the test pressure at that point. Think here steel does not bulge cylinder barrels (no choke), although the steel shot could scour the barrel all the way along it (steel will not scratch chrome, due to the Mohs scale of hardness). This failure is either down to poor steel or perhaps a previous failed choke, which has been used for steel, that has stressed the thinner section where the choke was fitted. I would be looking at the thickness left in the tube, after boring for the chokes, as one area for manufacturing concern. Without knowing the manufacture process, I would fancy the failed choke option, especially as the real history is unclear. thats a good solid sensible post. proof pressure is 25/30mm into the chamber. i think its due to either too tight a choke used with either too big a steel load at too fast a speed. if you look at some of the american forums they have choke, choke thread and barrel failures. in some cases recorded on the cameras they excessively glue on the side of gums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 thats a good solid sensible post. proof pressure is 25/30mm into the chamber. i think its due to either too tight a choke used with either too big a steel load at too fast a speed. if you look at some of the american forums they have choke, choke thread and barrel failures. in some cases recorded on the cameras they excessively glue on the side of gums. That's a bit extreme ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 That's a bit extreme ! yeah i know ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriBsa Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 Yes, but..... many reviews are biased - something related to advertising revenue? A bit like giving references for people applying for jobs - one is not allowed to be totally honest on all occasions! Always 'read between the lines', is my advice, when checking these out. Look for things that are not reported on, but seem relevant to yourself. These details are often omitted on purpose! Yes, some might say I may be too cynical, but I'm not stupid. Read reviews carefully. Wise words. Reviews are usually accompanied by a full page ad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriBsa Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 thats a good solid sensible post. proof pressure is 25/30mm into the chamber. i think its due to either too tight a choke used with either too big a steel load at too fast a speed. if you look at some of the american forums they have choke, choke thread and barrel failures. in some cases recorded on the cameras they excessively glue on the side of gums. Could it be down to poor machining when cutting the internal choke thread having weakened the barrel? Such as blunt tool, lack of cutting lubricant or wrong speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisAsh Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 Me i'm a coward and would ditch the barrel and if i was buying a gun which had any serious work done on it like shortning the barrel i would want it re-proofed Life is to short to take risks or advice from people who only think they have the expertise to give expert advice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 Yes, but..... many reviews are biased - something related to advertising revenue? A bit like giving references for people applying for jobs - one is not allowed to be totally honest on all occasions! Always 'read between the lines', is my advice, when checking these out. Look for things that are not reported on, but seem relevant to yourself. These details are often omitted on purpose! Yes, some might say I may be too cynical, but I'm not stupid. Read reviews carefully. Indeed , I don't think I have ever seen a poor review of anything in a shooting or fishing magazine. They make a lot of money out of the advertisers and are hardly going to **** them off by saying their products are rubbish ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul223 Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 With no bulge and no damage to the choke which probably lets steel off the hook, another option is material flaw. Yep, if it was flawed throughout you would expect the higher pressure end to fail first. However, would you be confident that with further use nothing else would 'let go' and I'm thinking somewhere closer to your head. As you've been well treated by Edgars, I'd be inclined to bin that one rather than take a risk. It'll be interesting to hear what our resident 'smiths say if they pick up on the thread. ^^^^ THIS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris1961 Posted May 25, 2015 Report Share Posted May 25, 2015 There is a test for metal flaws it involves spraying the metal with a special florescent fluid that shows up under ultraviolet light done it a few times when I was in engineering on gears for Jordon f1 team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted May 25, 2015 Report Share Posted May 25, 2015 There is a test for metal flaws it involves spraying the metal with a special florescent fluid that shows up under ultraviolet light done it a few times when I was in engineering on gears for Jordon f1 team Ardrox - and by any other name. This system detects existing cracks and not a flaw in the molecular make up of the material itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliver90owner Posted May 25, 2015 Report Share Posted May 25, 2015 Ultrasonics are more likely to expose a fault within the metal. Going to x-rays is likely much more costly method of flaw detection. And yes, crack testing with flourescent penetrant and talcum powder used to work OK but requires the fault to extend to the surface. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortune Posted May 25, 2015 Report Share Posted May 25, 2015 A few years ago a mate of mine had an old boxlock ejector which was a Braendlin arms ( Not sure if spelt correctly) with Damascus barrels. In it's day it was probably a very good gun. Anyway it had belonged to his uncle who had been a farmer. This chap had carried it on the tractor and when cutting the hay with a finger mower for knocking over the rabbits. At some time in the past the gun had fallen off of the tractor and got into the finger mower that had cut into the barrel. All they did was to take it up to the local garage that found a bit of rod that went up the barrel and acted as a mandrel. They just beat the metal back somewhere near to where it had originated and then brazed it up. They didn’t file it down or anything and it was just put back into operation. This was used for at least thirty years before my mate was given it. He used to bring it out on wet days and shot very well with it. The gun had an odd sort of report noise when it was fired. Eventually he thought that it was well worth renovating and had new barrels made, the action stripped and serviced and the stock sorted, oiled and the whole lot nitro proved. BUT the gun with its brazed up hole in the barrel had worked for at least forty years with no problems. I wouldn’t worry about the barrel on this gun, because the split is right up the muzzle end and if it were to have gone it would have done so by now. The wall thickness down near the breach is very great in comparison to the muzzle end and if it was chopped and shortened back to solid stuff then the pressure would be less anyway. Chop it down tie it to a tree, put the most pokey cartridge that you can get your hands on. Put a bit of string on the trigger and make it have it. Kind of a proof test. It either will or won’t. ( blow up that is.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted May 25, 2015 Report Share Posted May 25, 2015 So forty pounds for a replacement barrel. Why then are you even considering using the failed one again why not go completely mad and buy two new barrels and bin the original.It's already failed you once if it was to do so a second time you might be looking for more than just a barrel. Well if your eyes are still intact that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornfree Posted May 25, 2015 Report Share Posted May 25, 2015 I would just tighten a jubilee clip around the split and carry on using it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortune Posted May 25, 2015 Report Share Posted May 25, 2015 BUT the gun with its brazed up hole in the barrel had worked for at least forty years with no problems. I wouldn’t worry about the barrel on this gun, because the split is right up the muzzle end and if it were to have gone it would have done so by now. The wall thickness down near the breach is very great in comparison to the muzzle end and if it was chopped and shortened back to solid stuff then the pressure would be less anyway. Chop it down tie it to a tree, put the most pokey cartridge that you can get your hands on. Put a bit of string on the trigger and make it have it. Kind of a proof test. It either will or won’t. ( blow up that is.) After reading my post I thought that I would re access my thoughts. First as you have a new barrel there isnt any need to use the old one. BUT I like to experiment and play with things in a safe manner. Thats why I would do a sort of " what would happen if" test. light blue touch paper and stand well back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lister22 Posted May 25, 2015 Report Share Posted May 25, 2015 its your gun do what you want with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted May 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2015 Seeing as the thread has resurfaced... New barrel arrived Friday, 29" not 30" but that`s actually better seeing as the pump is my rough shooting/pigeon gun. Barrel came with a 1/4 choke fitted so that was an extra bonus. I`m going to get back in touch with Tom and see if he would be interested in having the old barrel. As long as Edgar Bros. cover the cost of posting or arrange for a rep. to pick it up. If not I will cut off the damaged section and post that. It`s highly doubtful I`ll ever use the old barrel again. It might well be safe but I`m somewhat attached to my eyes and fingers and would rather not take the risk. Although I do quite like Fortune`s idea of "proof testing" it. Might have to get one of my homeloading mates to knock me up something with a lot of boom. Thanks to everyone for their feedback Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortune Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 Boom-shack-a-lak a what the people them want Boom-shack-a-lak rude boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.