Steel proof info

[timps]

55 minutes ago, Scully said:

I’m not disputing anything you’ve written, as you’re simply passing on information, I just don’t get the logic behind the statement by CIP as you have state above. 
Deeming a gun which hasn’t passed proofing for steel as unsuitable or unsafe for that shot simply isn’t logical if the gun in question is in proof for nitro. 
I could understand the statement if barrels made for guns nowadays were made any differently to those made before the advent of steel shot, but as far as I’m aware they aren’t. If they were, then Nitro proofed guns couldn’t be subject for steel shot proofing, but they can, and are. 
Therefore it stands to reason this ‘increased risk’ applies to ALL barrels, new ones which haven’t been proofed at all as yet, and those of older nitro proofed guns being submitted for proofing for steel. Logic dictates it has to be so. 🤷‍♂️

 

They are not stating it is going to fail or be unsafe just that it hasn’t been tested to the same service pressure therefore they cannot say it is safe.

For them to say it is safe they have to test, for them to say it is unsafe they also have to test, as it hasn’t been tested they are just saying it hasn’t been proven safe.

I have no idea on the exact numbers but brand new guns do fail in sufficient numbers at the proof house due to a variety of reasons hence why they wait until a gun has passed proof before engraving, fitting the stock and finishing etc.

Once it is proofed you know that it has been subjected to pressures that exceed any commercially available cartridge and should accommodate slight mistakes in loading to accommodate “if everything that could go wrong did go wrong”.

With HP steel, CIP believe you need a 30% increase in service pressure to accommodate “if everything that could go wrong did go wrong”.

Now obviously your un-proofed gun may accommodate this easily but you wont know until it happens, however, with a HP steel proofed gun you know it has been tested to that pressure already so should accommodate, a nitro gun you still don’t know.

That is the increased risk, you would rather any failure happened in the safety of the proof house rather than a few inches from your face/hand.

That is CIP’s logic on the increased risk to the shooter not anything that happens in the proof house.

[Tonka54]

38 minutes ago, timps said:

They are not stating it is going to fail or be unsafe just that it hasn’t been tested to the same service pressure therefore they cannot say it is safe.

For them to say it is safe they have to test, for them to say it is unsafe they also have to test, as it hasn’t been tested they are just saying it hasn’t been proven safe.

I have no idea on the exact numbers but brand new guns do fail in sufficient numbers at the proof house due to a variety of reasons hence why they wait until a gun has passed proof before engraving, fitting the stock and finishing etc.

Once it is proofed you know that it has been subjected to pressures that exceed any commercially available cartridge and should accommodate slight mistakes in loading to accommodate “if everything that could go wrong did go wrong”.

With HP steel, CIP believe you need a 30% increase in service pressure to accommodate “if everything that could go wrong did go wrong”.

Now obviously your un-proofed gun may accommodate this easily but you wont know until it happens, however, with a HP steel proofed gun you know it has been tested to that pressure already so should accommodate, a nitro gun you still don’t know.

That is the increased risk, you would rather any failure happened in the safety of the proof house rather than a few inches from your face/hand.

That is CIP’s logic on the increased risk to the shooter not anything that happens in the proof house.

Agree with this 100% timps, The way this reads to me in layman's terms is that they are saying any shotgun that has been nitro proofed to at least 930 bar, has no serious damage or wear to the barrels, should be ok to use with standard steel shot. 

However, should a shotgun that has been nitro proofed be being considered for use with HP or superior steel shot, then the user, for their own peace of mind and the health and safety of themselves and others around them whilst the shotgun is to be used for this purpose, should consider having the gun reproofed up to the required 1320 bar.

Now, whilst some have pointed out that at present there is no legal obligation to reproof a shotgun for HP steel shot, and the owner/user, if he so chooses, can take the risk and decide to put himself and possibly others at risk by putting HP steel shot through a shotgun that may or may not be suitable and could fail at some point, purely to save the expense of a reproof is morally very wrong in my eyes.    

[wymberley]

15 hours ago, timps said:

I have had long debates on PW in this in the past and not going down that road again but for some info.

Someone did contact CIP directly and got an official response which was posted on here some time back.

According to CIP the HP steel/steel-like shot proof uses three cartridges containing large steel pellets and generating some 30% greater service pressure (not burst pressure) per barrel than the standard PSF** 1370 lead shot test. The gun is then marked “Steel Shot” and with Fleur-de-Lys.

Meaning that while the chamber pressures are the same for both steel and lead, the pressure in the rest of the barrel is some 30% greater for HP steel proof test due to the harder steel shot.

In the eyes of CIP a gun not subjected to the steel proof test would be deemed not to have passed steel shot proof and so not suitable/safe to fire HP steel/steel-like cartridges. That is not to say that such a gun would necessarily be damaged but CIP would maintain that the risk of its being so is increased.

The proof test is designed to take into consideration if everything that could go wrong did go wrong (faulty load etc) the gun would survive.

The increased risk is because there is always a remote possibility that your gun could fail the HP steel proof load but would have survive the standard PSF** 1370.

This mythical gun could quite happily survive on HP steel but one slightly different cart (faulty) or change in brand and there could be a failure.

God knows the odds on that scenario but I thought I would point it out all the same, there is an increase in risk, if you are happy with this risk then go for it, if not then don’t.

However, it is only responsible to point out that CIP see an increase in risk however remote.

Thanks for that.  Unless I've miss-read it though, I think the "burst" pressure should have read, 'proof'. I know steel works and am sure that all things being as they should it presents no problems ballistically speaking. However, when you can buy lead loads for a given chamber size that toss out some 20 Ns without a problem, you can perhaps understand the sense in your final sentence when it seems there is a need to restrict steel to 15.

[did i miss]

So can some one tell me it says kg 1.400 on the barrels how to convert that to bar because I can't find out else to point me in the right direction 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1400 X 2.2 = 3080

 

3080 / 15 = 205 Bar

[wymberley]

1 hour ago, did i miss said:

So can some one tell me it says kg 1.400 on the barrels how to convert that to bar because I can't find out else to point me in the right direction 

As already previously mentioned (Page 1) I think the gun being of Italian extraction the 1.400 kg will actually be 1.400 Kg and be the weight of the barrels. Or 3.09 lbs. Also, your chambers are 76mm and not 67. Your proof marks - I think - are to the right of the 18.4 (barrel diameter), but although I think I know what they are, I'm afraid my old eyes are not up to it so being uncertain, will not comment.

PS Please get someone else to check, but looking again the proof mark that I mentioned could well be provisional and the definitive mark is on the last photo below the number and looks to be superior proof. However, as said, please check. 

Edited December 23, 2021 by wymberley

[timps]

2 hours ago, wymberley said:

Thanks for that.  Unless I've miss-read it though, I think the "burst" pressure should have read, 'proof'. I know steel works and am sure that all things being as they should it presents no problems ballistically speaking. However, when you can buy lead loads for a given chamber size that toss out some 20 Ns without a problem, you can perhaps understand the sense in your final sentence when it seems there is a need to restrict steel to 15.

 

I am so used to dealing with burst pressure at work, and I totally accept burst wasn’t the correct word.When we are pressure testing at the lab the vessel or pipe is subjected to the same pressure throughout its length.

With the proof testing of shotguns this not the case, the pressure is measured at the chamber (or as near as damn it) this pressure would most likely burst the rest of the barrel. For both HP steel and PSF**1370 the chamber pressure is the same, however, as the proof pressure is designed to test the whole of the barrel as well even though chamber pressure is the only one quoted.

Seeing as the barrel pressure is some 30% greater for HP steel, then proof pressure also isn’t the correct word, I guess we should stick to chamber pressure and barrel pressure.

I am not getting into the safety aspects as that is for the CIP to champion, I am just pointing out the two test are not the same pressure on the barrel, if this bothers you get it HP steel proofed, if it doesn’t then carry on.

I also know that I am discussing this with very knowledgeable people on steel but try and write my posts so the less knowledgeable of the forum can understand my ramblings and make their own decision so I’m in no way intimating  that you don’t know how steel works.

 

[wymberley]

10 minutes ago, timps said:

 

I am so used to dealing with burst pressure at work, and I totally accept burst wasn’t the correct word.When we are pressure testing at the lab the vessel or pipe is subjected to the same pressure throughout its length.

With the proof testing of shotguns this not the case, the pressure is measured at the chamber (or as near as damn it) this pressure would most likely burst the rest of the barrel. For both HP steel and PSF**1370 the chamber pressure is the same, however, as the proof pressure is designed to test the whole of the barrel as well even though chamber pressure is the only one quoted.

Seeing as the barrel pressure is some 30% greater for HP steel, then proof pressure also isn’t the correct word, I guess we should stick to chamber pressure and barrel pressure.

I am not getting into the safety aspects as that is for the CIP to champion, I am just pointing out the two test are not the same pressure on the barrel, if this bothers you get it HP steel proofed, if it doesn’t then carry on.

I also know that I am discussing this with very knowledgeable people on steel but try and write my posts so the less knowledgeable of the forum can understand my ramblings and make their own decision so I’m in no way intimating  that you don’t know how steel works.

 

No, sorry, we should stick with what we always have used. That is service and proof pressures.

[timps]

44 minutes ago, wymberley said:

No, sorry, we should stick with what we always have used. That is service and proof pressures.

Ok fair enough, but in that case maybe we should also stick to the CIP warning we have always used written on every box of HP steel  “High Performance Steel ammunition can only be used in shotguns bearing a CIP Fleur de Lys proof mark.”  🤷‍♂️

You might know what you are on about, but plenty of other people on this forum are confused and think just because the proof pressure listed are the same the gun is tested the same.

I am just trying to help clarify, just stating the proof pressure is trying to compare apples with oranges, its not the same spec of cartridge, it is not the same test, it’s not the same pressures involved so any comparisons are completely flawed without some form of clarification or caveats.

So we will stick with term proof pressure and also the warning HP steel should not be used, that’s the end of debate for me. 👍

[wymberley]

16 minutes ago, timps said:

Ok fair enough, but in that case maybe we should also stick to the CIP warning we have always used written on every box of HP steel  “High Performance Steel ammunition can only be used in shotguns bearing a CIP Fleur de Lys proof mark.”  🤷‍♂️

You might know what you are on about, but plenty of other people on this forum are confused and think just because the proof pressure listed are the same the gun is tested the same.

I am just trying to help clarify, just stating the proof pressure is trying to compare apples with oranges, its not the same spec of cartridge, it is not the same test, it’s not the same pressures involved so any comparisons are completely flawed without some form of clarification or caveats.

So we will stick with term proof pressure and also the warning HP steel should not be used, that’s the end of debate for me. 👍

It should get better, although, of course, we can not pass the responsibility of knowing what our gun/s can/can't handle on to anyone else. We've had load weights, tons per, kgs per, bar and Newtons and heaven knows what next. To make matters worse, we being Brits have to be different and used service pressures as our reference whereas everyone else used proof pressures. At least now we're all on the same hymn sheet. This is handy, as although it's not a bad idea to understand how our guns are made safe for us to use, we don't really need to be totally au fait with the nitty gritty, just as long as we know what the proof marks and any associated stamps (barrel weight, for example ) are telling us.

[did i miss]

Womersley thank you things a becoming a little  more clear if I can get some better photos wold you mind having a look if I pm them to you thanks

[Scully]

17 hours ago, Tonka54 said:

Agree with this 100% timps, The way this reads to me in layman's terms is that they are saying any shotgun that has been nitro proofed to at least 930 bar, has no serious damage or wear to the barrels, should be ok to use with standard steel shot. 

However, should a shotgun that has been nitro proofed be being considered for use with HP or superior steel shot, then the user, for their own peace of mind and the health and safety of themselves and others around them whilst the shotgun is to be used for this purpose, should consider having the gun reproofed up to the required 1320 bar.

Now, whilst some have pointed out that at present there is no legal obligation to reproof a shotgun for HP steel shot, and the owner/user, if he so chooses, can take the risk and decide to put himself and possibly others at risk by putting HP steel shot through a shotgun that may or may not be suitable and could fail at some point, purely to save the expense of a reproof is morally very wrong in my eyes.    

I’m not disputing anything Timps has posted, nor questioning the points he raised, only the logic behind the information he has given, which isn’t his but rather information passed in to him. 
I can’t find any information regarding the percentage of guns sent for HP steel proofing which fail, either new or nitro proofed, and can’t think why that should be, or perhaps I haven’t looked hard enough? I can’t imagine it happens more than we would expect, as that would be damaging to gun manufacturers in more ways than one, but I can’t imagine it never happens either, for whatever reason. Does anyone know of a good condition nitro proofed gun failing steel shot proofing? I know of quite a few which have passed, but none which have failed. 
I’ve absolutely no doubt that it will become legislation to have our nitro proofed guns proofed for HP steel sometime in the future, if that’s what we want to use; I can’t really see any insurance company entertaining claims for damages incurred through using loads for which a gun wasn’t designed, although it may be worth people checking if their insurance covers them using their nitro proofed guns for ANY type of steel, standard or otherwise. 
I know all my non steel proofed guns are capable of handling HP steel as with the exception of one ( a trap gun which has never been used in the field )  I have used HP steel in them.
For those with quite a collection, it could turn out to be an expensive undertaking to have them all subjected to HP proofing. Either that or we just use standard steel, or of course, lead. 
All those awaiting a new design or the development by cartridge manufacturers of a different type of suitable alternative to steel than already exists are, according to William Powell, going to be disappointed. It ain’t going to happen. 
Some folk, myself included, could find the value of their guns greatly reduced or even worthless, through no fault of their own. 

 

[wymberley]

1 hour ago, did i miss said:

Womersley thank you things a becoming a little  more clear if I can get some better photos wold you mind having a look if I pm them to you thanks

By all means, but to make it easier, perhaps:

To the right of the 18.4 is that a star set in what looks to be a cog-like circle which sits on a shield/plaque containing crossed rifles? That would be the provisional proof marks. On the other photos below the number/above the BZ are there 2 of the stars/circles above the letters PSF? This is definitive superior proof. Googling Italian shotgun proof marks should reveal all.

EDIT Or see Yellow Belly's thread "PSF 2 Star Proof Mark now recovered in Bullets and Cartridges

Edited December 23, 2021 by wymberley

[did i miss]

Womersley you have pm thank you

[blasterjudd]

In lamens terms what is the difference between a non steel tested barrel and a New HP Superior barrel apart from the test pressure as surely that's all were talking about on this issue ?????

[Accuspell]

I went to one of the BASC 'try steel for yourself' days, the one at Shugborough shootig ground. BASC, or more correctly the cartridge makers, provided the ammunition. There were a couple of different, new, steel cartridges to try. These were aimed at game shooters so not big cartridges, equivalent of old fashioned Grand Prix 1 1/16th.  They were as concerned with the biodegradability of the fired pieces as they were of the non-lead shot use. The cartridges were either paper cased or made from biodegradable cellulose plastic, maize starch was in one and the entire cartridge case was biodegrable, properly compostible. These cartridges, both types on offer on the day, were suitable for use through old English game guns, even if they hadn't been steel proofed. The reason stated being that the shot was encases in a biodegradable fibre 'plaswad' cup type wad rather than just disc wads, thereby containing the shot through the barrel and a bit beyond, maybe 6 feet or so. I can't remember what was said about chokes, but I use true and improved, or my old English gun is imp and 1/4 so it is of little consequence to me. I have never used a tight choke - oh not true, I used a loan gun in Alabama turkey hunting and that was extra full 3 1/2" special turkey choke and turkey cartridges. By god they kicked like an H&H .400 magnum! (Yes, 400, not 375).

[London Best]

I did not go to a try steel day, because when I enquired if any cartridges would be suitable for English game guns I was told, “No, only 70mm stuff”.

[kevin55]

19 minutes ago, London Best said:

I did not go to a try steel day, because when I enquired if any cartridges would be suitable for English game guns I was told, “No, only 70mm stuff”.

There are 65mm cartridges now

[London Best]

1 minute ago, kevin55 said:

There are 65mm cartridges now

They were available when I enquired, but I was told none would be there to try.

I have been totally unable to buy any myself, and have some on back order.

[Tonka54]

14 minutes ago, Accuspell said:

were suitable for use through old English game guns, even if they hadn't been steel proofed. The reason stated being that the shot was encases in a biodegradable fibre 'plaswad' cup type wad rather than just disc wads, thereby containing the shot through the barrel and a bit beyond, maybe 6 feet or so. I can't remember what was said about chokes, but I use true and improved, or my old English gun is imp and 1/4 so it is of little consequence to me.

Well I for one am a little bit confused by this bit. I have always been lead to believe that standard steel was ok to put through guns that meet the minimum nitro proof of 930 bar, but for superior/HP steel the gun has to be fleur de lys proofed or in the region of 1320 bar to stand a good chance of being reproofed.

The idea of putting steel shot in a plastic / fibre cup primarily is to protect the barrels, as you say, the shot is contained within this cup until well after it has left the gun, so providing the choking is correct steel shot should not cause any damage.

However, I don't think this is the criteria to use to determine whether it is safe or not to use steel shot. I think it's the pressure rating that determines this, otherwise, what is the point of the bar ratings.     

[London Best]

23 minutes ago, Tonka54 said:

Well I for one am a little bit confused by this bit. I have always been lead to believe that standard steel was ok to put through guns that meet the minimum nitro proof of 930 bar, but for superior/HP steel the gun has to be fleur de lys proofed or in the region of 1320 bar to stand a good chance of being reproofed.

The idea of putting steel shot in a plastic / fibre cup primarily is to protect the barrels, as you say, the shot is contained within this cup until well after it has left the gun, so providing the choking is correct steel shot should not cause any damage.

However, I don't think this is the criteria to use to determine whether it is safe or not to use steel shot. I think it's the pressure rating that determines this, otherwise, what is the point of the bar ratings.     

Accuspell is talking about 65 mm/2 1/2 inch cartridges loaded with steel shot specifically with a max pressure suitable to use in 2 1/2 in ch chambered guns.

[Tonka54]

10 minutes ago, London Best said:

Accuspell is talking about 65 mm/2 1/2 inch cartridges loaded with steel shot specifically with a max pressure suitable to use in 2 1/2 in ch chambered guns.

OK thanks for the clarification LB.  Sorry missed that bit completely 

[Charlie1965]

I got a couple of boxes of fibre wad steels to pattern test thru my Beretta.

Yes it has 3” chambers but no it’s not steel proofed, running i/c and half chokes. 16 years old and well run in. 
 

The Lyalvale Express are most interesting as 30g, 5’s, 65mm with a roll turnover so could be used in 2 1/2” chambered guns. Sorry if someone has already covered this. And no I haven’t had chance to try them yet.
 

 

[wymberley]

22 hours ago, blasterjudd said:

In lamens terms what is the difference between a non steel tested barrel and a New HP Superior barrel apart from the test pressure as surely that's all were talking about on this issue ?????

Briefly as I understand it, there's an additional reading taken in addition to the normal ones in the chamber which is further down the barrel.

[Sweet11-87]

this is where the american guns come into their own imo. folks have been slagging them off for years but  in the land of lawsuits, no proofing and SAAMI cartridges, you better believe the post 1990 guns can handle the CIP pressures and then some