Proof house result!!

[Scully]

‘Overbuilt clubs of guns’? I have six American shotguns, I can’t describe any as ‘overbuilt’. Which models did you have in mind? 

[Stonepark]

10 hours ago, bigroomboy said:

The American route of no centralised proof testing which led to over built clubs of guns just incase somebody popped a big homeland through?

 

Minimum acceptable walk thickness for proof is around 20thou (though anything down to circa 15 thou is still safe to fire), most historic guns started somewhere around 30 - 40 thou but nearly all new modern guns are sitting around 45 thou as nearly all are either magnum proofed or semi-magnum proofed. Multi chokes often add another 5 thou.

Traditionally, a square load (30g)  in black powder did not exceed 4500psi to 5000psi, modern powders and the charge for velocity means 28g 'fast cartridges now sit about 7500psi, 36g semi magnums 11000psi and magnums 13000 psi and most steel cartridges fall into the latter two categories.

Modern barrels can be drain pipes (Baikal 410 SxS must be over 100 thou), but generally with advances in ammunition, manufacturers have kept barrels as thin as they can, but still able to cope with the ammo that may be used in them.

The "Americanisation" of guns is that they are all built to handle magnum pressures and steel which is not solely an American issue but is a general trend across the UK as well as people seem to want higher velocity (and as a byproduct higher pressure) and the modern guns are designed to cope with this on a regular basis, whereas an older gun may have only seen a heavier load very occasionally when geese flew over.

Come back to shooting 28g no7 for everything within 40 yards and you don't need modern "drain pipes" but look on most shoots and whether for duck or pheasant 34g to 36g no5 is quite common operating at 1300fps and 11000psi, and hence guns are built to what purchasers want to fire in cartridges.

A 6lb best SxS pre WW2 is not designed to shoot a high velocity, high pressure modern cartridge, the fact that it can, is testament to the manufacturers, the fact they wear out through barrel thining and action loosening shows that they are being operated at their maximum tolerances and beyond with modern ammunition.

 

[rbrowning2]

Riot indeed, we may not even have five years of lead remaining, then the assumption you can use up any lead you have the HSE proposal suggests in becomes illegal to use.

and now

The HSE has appointed Professors Debbie Pain and Rhys Green to its Independent Scientific Expert Pool and the agency only published this information in October 2022. This is very concerning because both individuals have been quoted in the media calling for a ban on lead ammunition since the HSE review began.

That clear conflict of interest is magnified when one considers that a dozen and more research papers that the HSE is relying on in its restriction dossier are authored by the very same lead ban campaigners.

Furthermore, Pain and Green are being asked to advise on and critique the HSE’s use of that evidence for its proposals to ban lead ammunition.

The HSE is in effect marking its own homework.

https://basc.org.uk/basc-exposes-process-failures-in-lead-ban-proposals/

 

 

 

[Dave at kelton]

49 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

 

Minimum acceptable walk thickness for proof is around 20thou (though anything down to circa 15 thou is still safe to fire), most historic guns started somewhere around 30 - 40 thou but nearly all new modern guns are sitting around 45 thou as nearly all are either magnum proofed or semi-magnum proofed. Multi chokes often add another 5 thou.

Traditionally, a square load (30g)  in black powder did not exceed 4500psi to 5000psi, modern powders and the charge for velocity means 28g 'fast cartridges now sit about 7500psi, 36g semi magnums 11000psi and magnums 13000 psi and most steel cartridges fall into the latter two categories.

Modern barrels can be drain pipes (Baikal 410 SxS must be over 100 thou), but generally with advances in ammunition, manufacturers have kept barrels as thin as they can, but still able to cope with the ammo that may be used in them.

The "Americanisation" of guns is that they are all built to handle magnum pressures and steel which is not solely an American issue but is a general trend across the UK as well as people seem to want higher velocity (and as a byproduct higher pressure) and the modern guns are designed to cope with this on a regular basis, whereas an older gun may have only seen a heavier load very occasionally when geese flew over.

Come back to shooting 28g no7 for everything within 40 yards and you don't need modern "drain pipes" but look on most shoots and whether for duck or pheasant 34g to 36g no5 is quite common operating at 1300fps and 11000psi, and hence guns are built to what purchasers want to fire in cartridges.

A 6lb best SxS pre WW2 is not designed to shoot a high velocity, high pressure modern cartridge, the fact that it can, is testament to the manufacturers, the fact they wear out through barrel thining and action loosening shows that they are being operated at their maximum tolerances and beyond with modern ammunition.

 

I agree entirely on 28g of 7, or 6 in my case but we are about to be denied that by the removal of lead ammunition. So it’s steel or nothing. For steel to be as effective it needs two things, larger shot size and velocity. Thus we have to face up to higher pressures. 
 

I am perfectly happy using standard steel in my lightweight English game gun with walls in part down to 15 thou but proofed in the last ten years. This is on standard game ranges. The problem is that these cartridges will fail at greater ranges hence we need to use hp steel. My point is most modern guns are perfectly adequate for the higher pressures anyway so we are just making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Sweet11-87]

the term steel proofing is missleading in a way.

becasue you can in theory shoot steel through any gun providing the pressure of the cartridge is below the pressure its proofed for but  unless home loading i think youll struggle to find a steel cartridge thats hitting a pressure bellow 850.

for a 12 guage

standard proof   (850 bar, single crown stamp or CIP-N) carts top out at 650 bar

superior proof  (1200 bar, double crown stamp or CIP-S) carts top out at 800 bar

high performance aka supiror steel (1320 bar fleur de lis stamp) called superiour steel as very few if any lead cartriges are generating this much chamber pressure to get the payload up to speed

as for chokes it a total other subject but its advised not to go above steel shot 3 or half choke on guns not proofed to 1320 bar becasue the shot will not compress or deform like lead when forced through the choke at speed resulting in barrel bulges.  guns designed for high pressure loads are usualy built tougher at the choke point as are the chokes so becomes less of an issue but in my personal experince throwing steel through any choke above half  when they are not aftermarket specific steel chokes  tend to open back up and have erratic patterns anyway.

 

   

[Gordon R]

Quote

There was a trap gun advertised on a popular website as suitable for standard steel as the chokes had been opened up, whereas in fact it was already suitable for standard steel in its original state. 🤷‍♂️

I believe that I saw that one. You couldn't make it up.

[Scully]

11 hours ago, Stonepark said:

 

Minimum acceptable walk thickness for proof is around 20thou (though anything down to circa 15 thou is still safe to fire), most historic guns started somewhere around 30 - 40 thou but nearly all new modern guns are sitting around 45 thou as nearly all are either magnum proofed or semi-magnum proofed. Multi chokes often add another 5 thou.

Traditionally, a square load (30g)  in black powder did not exceed 4500psi to 5000psi, modern powders and the charge for velocity means 28g 'fast cartridges now sit about 7500psi, 36g semi magnums 11000psi and magnums 13000 psi and most steel cartridges fall into the latter two categories.

Modern barrels can be drain pipes (Baikal 410 SxS must be over 100 thou), but generally with advances in ammunition, manufacturers have kept barrels as thin as they can, but still able to cope with the ammo that may be used in them.

The "Americanisation" of guns is that they are all built to handle magnum pressures and steel which is not solely an American issue but is a general trend across the UK as well as people seem to want higher velocity (and as a byproduct higher pressure) and the modern guns are designed to cope with this on a regular basis, whereas an older gun may have only seen a heavier load very occasionally when geese flew over.

Come back to shooting 28g no7 for everything within 40 yards and you don't need modern "drain pipes" but look on most shoots and whether for duck or pheasant 34g to 36g no5 is quite common operating at 1300fps and 11000psi, and hence guns are built to what purchasers want to fire in cartridges.

A 6lb best SxS pre WW2 is not designed to shoot a high velocity, high pressure modern cartridge, the fact that it can, is testament to the manufacturers, the fact they wear out through barrel thining and action loosening shows that they are being operated at their maximum tolerances and beyond with modern ammunition.

 

Good post. 

[Scully]

2 hours ago, Gordon R said:

I believe that I saw that one. You couldn't make it up.

Quite. It’s a shame when perfectly serviceable guns are being ‘modified’ to suit an agenda.

I have two trap guns, both American, one of which is fixed choke at full/full, the other full/extra full. Neither will be modified. 
Technology doesn’t stand still, and ammunition will ( in my opinion ) evolve to cater to ALL guns given time. 
 

11 hours ago, Dave at kelton said:

For steel to be as effective it needs two things, larger shot size and velocity. Thus we have to face up to higher pressures. 
My point is most modern guns are perfectly adequate for the higher pressures anyway so we are just making a mountain out of a molehill.

Totally agree. 👍

[Sweet11-87]

On 24/11/2022 at 09:21, Robden said:

Surely the shot size has a bearing on this?  Also what about this pressure malarky?  Take a plastic cup, no lid, (like a wad) full of shot and squeeze the sides. What happens?    The shot doesn't pierce the sides. Like water, it will take the path of least resistance.....out of the open top.

All this reminds me of the 2000 millennium bug scare. On the stroke of midnight 31st December 1999, anything with a date and controlled by computers would go ape**** and shut down. Planes would fall out of the sky etc.  People spent fortunes trying to counteract this doomsday scenario. And what happened.....Naff all.    

 

what happens to your head when you accelerate in a fast car?.   when a cartridge goes off  its accelerating that wad that is in turn pushing that shot from zero to over 750 mile per hour in the space of however long the barrel is. the shot is compressed in that shotcup so tight it deforms. reclamed lead shot looks like golfballs.

[wymberley]

On 25/11/2022 at 16:55, Sweet11-87 said:

the term steel proofing is missleading in a way.

becasue you can in theory shoot steel through any gun providing the pressure of the cartridge is below the pressure its proofed for but  unless home loading i think youll struggle to find a steel cartridge thats hitting a pressure bellow 850.

for a 12 guage

standard proof   (850 bar, single crown stamp or CIP-N) carts top out at 650 bar

superior proof  (1200 bar, double crown stamp or CIP-S) carts top out at 800 bar

high performance aka supiror steel (1320 bar fleur de lis stamp) called superiour steel as very few if any lead cartriges are generating this much chamber pressure to get the payload up to speed

as for chokes it a total other subject but its advised not to go above steel shot 3 or half choke on guns not proofed to 1320 bar becasue the shot will not compress or deform like lead when forced through the choke at speed resulting in barrel bulges.  guns designed for high pressure loads are usualy built tougher at the choke point as are the chokes so becomes less of an issue but in my personal experince throwing steel through any choke above half  when they are not aftermarket specific steel chokes  tend to open back up and have erratic patterns anyway.

 

   

Some interesting posts. Could I ask what is the difference between the two highlighted proof standards?

[hawkfanz]

On 23/11/2022 at 20:29, Dave at kelton said:

Are you sure? If it’s proofed for lead it means you can use standard steel. It doesn’t mean it has been steel proofed unless I am completely mistaken.

thats my thinking too,otherwise they would av put fruer de lys on it.

[Sweet11-87]

10 hours ago, wymberley said:

Some interesting posts. Could I ask what is the difference between the two highlighted proof standards?

sure so to my knowledge superior proof has been around since the 50s it was a way of  proofing for chamber lengths. as you had standard proof that was intended for up to 70mm and superior which was designed for over 70mm like 3" magnums for example  (however most guns now are superior proofed regardless of chamber length as metal and enginering has got better and i imagine a gun that wasnt proofed in this day an age past stage one just wouldnt take off or sell). 

i dont know the ins and out of it but american law either hunting regulation or firearms regulation for some reason bigger bore is a no go so where we went to 10 bore the US had to just keep upping the 12 and in the late 80s they upped it to 3.5 as trends trickle down they came over here in terms of guns, ammo and load data the high performance proof was off the back of that in 2000s and again like previous guns have just been proofed to this standard  if they can handle it even if theyre not wildfowl guns or  3.5 chambers

this isnt definitive so dont take it as gosple as this is what ive peiced together from multiple sources and load manuals when i was home loading high end SAAMI spec cartridges for my mossberg 535 (americas take on CIP ) and make sure my gun was safe.

[mattsccm]

The cycnic in me wonders if all these regualtion/restrictions/guidance etc are a bit like sell by dates on bacon. Very very cautious to protect collective bottoms. Of course there are limits but I bet a quid they they are very very casutious about all this. 

Of course if people are worried and affected by scoring they can buy lots of these guns that are going to be valueless and shoot them until they are scrap ad buy another.

[Sweet11-87]

2 minutes ago, mattsccm said:

The cycnic in me wonders if all these regualtion/restrictions/guidance etc are a bit like sell by dates on bacon. Very very cautious to protect collective bottoms. Of course there are limits but I bet a quid they they are very very casutious about all this. 

Of course if people are worried and affected by scoring they can buy lots of these guns that are going to be valueless and shoot them until they are scrap ad buy another.

well youre  not a million miles off in a way.

back in the day the Proof house was a racket,  a way of ensuring the gunsmiths guild could keep making massive money because their royal charter made it illegal to sell guns not proofed and if somone came onto the market selling affordible guns and upsetting the apple cart they just refused to proof them.

modern day i do think its safety so id suggest airing on the safe side but a bit reserch on google you can give yourself a clearer picture of the whole thing. for instance im not saying dont bother with proof marks but the US doesnt proof guns  and has a very strong "wheres theirs blame their a clame" culture and they use ammunition that follows SAAMI regulations so their shotgun ammo tends to be a fair bit hotter than ours. so with that in mind if you buy an american gun or a gun sold commonly on the american market for duck and goose shooting its a resonable assumption its been built like a tank.

 

 

[Scully]

23 minutes ago, mattsccm said:

The cycnic in me wonders if all these regualtion/restrictions/guidance etc are a bit like sell by dates on bacon. Very very cautious to protect collective bottoms. Of course there are limits but I bet a quid they they are very very casutious about all this. 

Of course if people are worried and affected by scoring they can buy lots of these guns that are going to be valueless and shoot them until they are scrap ad buy another.

I’m also extremely cynical about the danger steel shot poses to normal nitro proofed guns, through my own experience, but I also grow increasingly tired of having to repeat that it matters not a jot to what pressure your gun has been proofed; whether it be nitro or HP, if that wad fails your barrels will or can be scored. It has NOTHING to do with the extent of proof those barrels have been subject to, scoring is entirely dependant on the integrity of the wad. 

[wymberley]

43 minutes ago, Sweet11-87 said:

sure so to my knowledge superior proof has been around since the 50s it was a way of  proofing for chamber lengths. as you had standard proof that was intended for up to 70mm and superior which was designed for over 70mm like 3" magnums for example  (however most guns now are superior proofed regardless of chamber length as metal and enginering has got better and i imagine a gun that wasnt proofed in this day an age past stage one just wouldnt take off or sell). 

i dont know the ins and out of it but american law either hunting regulation or firearms regulation for some reason bigger bore is a no go so where we went to 10 bore the US had to just keep upping the 12 and in the late 80s they upped it to 3.5 as trends trickle down they came over here in terms of guns, ammo and load data the high performance proof was off the back of that in 2000s and again like previous guns have just been proofed to this standard  if they can handle it even if theyre not wildfowl guns or  3.5 chambers

this isnt definitive so dont take it as gosple as this is what ive peiced together from multiple sources and load manuals when i was home loading high end SAAMI spec cartridges for my mossberg 535 (americas take on CIP ) and make sure my gun was safe.

Cheers.

Does 850 and 1200 bar ring a bell? Or 1050 and 1370 bar (105 and 137 MPa now) perhaps? Think crusher and transducer. There is no difference.

 

[Sweet11-87]

19 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Cheers.

Does 850 and 1200 bar ring a bell? Or 1050 and 1370 bar (105 and 137 MPa now) perhaps? Think crusher and transducer. There is no difference.

 

Yeah in my first post you quoted I put the pressures that each proof  is rated to and what the stamp looks like

[Gordon R]

Quote

 if that wad fails your barrels will or can be scored. It has NOTHING to do with the extent of proof those barrels have been subject to, scoring is entirely dependant on the integrity of the wad. 

What you have said on a number of occasions is absolutely correct, but some chose to ignore it.

Proof or superior proof has nothing to do with scored barrels.

[enfieldspares]

44 minutes ago, Scully said:

I’m also extremely cynical about the danger steel shot poses to normal nitro proofed guns, through my own experience, but I also grow increasingly tired of having to repeat that it matters not a jot to what pressure your gun has been proofed; whether it be nitro or HP, if that wad fails your barrels will or can be scored. It has NOTHING to do with the extent of proof those barrels have been subject to, scoring is entirely dependant on the integrity of the wad. 

I sometimes am exasperated by what our P/W member SCULLY posts! Usually as he isn't agreeing with me! LOL. Or the other way around. But I value what he says. 

And this post is absolutely 100% on the bullseye. Proof is like an MoT and it says that on the day gun X, or gun Y was tested and passed that test. That's all it does.

It is NOT a magic cloak and, as SCULLY rightly says, does not make the barrels now protected against the mischances and mishaps of future problems with failed wads. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by enfieldspares

[Scully]

10 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

I sometimes am exasperated by what our P/W member SCULLY posts! Usually as he isn't agreeing with me! LOL. Or the other way around. But I value what he says. 

And this post is absolutely 100% on the bullseye. Proof is like an MoT and it says that on the day gun X, or gun Y was tested and passed that test. That's all it does.

It is NOT a magic cloak and, as SCULLY rightly says, does not make the barrels now protected against the mischances and mishaps of future problems with failed wads. 

🙂Thankyou. I aim to please! 👍

10 hours ago, Gordon R said:

 

Proof or superior proof has nothing to do with scored barrels.

Thankyou. It all just adds to the confusion when some seem to think HP proofing is a cure all, it isn’t. 

[old'un]

12 hours ago, Scully said:

I’m also extremely cynical about the danger steel shot poses to normal nitro proofed guns, through my own experience, but I also grow increasingly tired of having to repeat that it matters not a jot to what pressure your gun has been proofed; whether it be nitro or HP, if that wad fails your barrels will or can be scored. It has NOTHING to do with the extent of proof those barrels have been subject to, scoring is entirely dependant on the integrity of the wad. 

Spot on ...if a wad fails with steel you are likely to see signs on the inner and outer of the barrel, more so near the muzzle, even if there are no outward signs you may see metal pickup on the barrel wall.

Steel on steel travelling at those speeds is not good, did think about this a little and was thinking hardened steel barrels but you would still have the possibility of pickup unless there was some way of lubricating the shot/barrel wall.

[London Best]

7 minutes ago, old'un said:

 

Steel on steel travelling at those speeds is not good, did think about this a little and was thinking hardened steel barrels but you would still have the possibility of pickup unless there was some way of lubricating the shot/barrel wall.

I don’t think hardened steel barrels would be an option. 
Surely the barrel needs to flex or give during firing? 
i would think there is a possibility of hardened steel shattering.

[old'un]

9 minutes ago, London Best said:

I don’t think hardened steel barrels would be an option. 
Surely the barrel needs to flex or give during firing? 
i would think there is a possibility of hardened steel shattering.

No it would not shatter if you case hardened or had the correct rockwell/temper.

[JohnfromUK]

9 minutes ago, London Best said:

I don’t think hardened steel barrels would be an option. 
Surely the barrel needs to flex or give during firing? 
i would think there is a possibility of hardened steel shattering.

I agree on hardened steel, but some hardenings are (I believe, though I'm no expert) a thin surface hardened layer.  I believe such types are used in bearing construction.  Case hardening may be of that type?  I have no idea if that could be done inside? 

Some barrels are internally hard chromed (Beretta for one).  Does this help in the event of wad failure?

[Rob85]

Regarding the wad situation, has anyone attempted to make their own biodegradable shot cup to handle steel shot rather than fork out the money for the market available ones?