Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact
NitroExpress.com: New Steel vs Old steel

View recent messages : 24 hours | 48 hours | 7 days | 14 days | 30 days | 60 days | More Smilies


*** Enjoy NitroExpress.com? Participate and join in. ***
You are not logged in. [Login] Main Index · Search · Active Topics
New user · Who's Online · FAQ · Calendar

Double Rifles, Single Shots & Combinations >> Double Rifles
Previous topic Previous   View all topics Index   Next topic Next   Threaded Mode Threaded  

Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
hoppdoc
.400 member


Reged: 02/03/06
Posts: 1791
Loc: Southeastern USA
New Steel vs Old steel
      #78948 - 19/05/07 01:07 PM

I am posting to try to obtain more knowledge regarding the quality of metallurgy of the past vs the present.

Is there any concern shooting a Brit classic with full loads with its older steels? Is there a danger of fatigue and other issues secondary to pressures? I am not refering to using monolithic metals in older Doubles which possibly ruin the barrels/soldering 2nd to obturation.They are bad on any Double.

Would not the quality of todays metals allow for lighter Doubles with similar or better strength? ?Can a better mousetrap be built with todays steels??

Can I make a better, lighter stronger Double that will stand more pressure than the older guns and be just as reliable/accurate?? Granted the internals will not have the mechanism precision of classic Brit rifles but outstanding accuracy should be possible for the construction of medium class Doubles.Big Doubles could be made stronger for the same weight desired.


Thanks for any and all opinions given.

--------------------
An armed man is a citizen of his country, an unarmed man just a subject.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mehulkamdar
.416 member


Reged: 09/01/04
Posts: 3688
Loc: State of Ill-Annoy USA.
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: hoppdoc]
      #78951 - 19/05/07 01:17 PM

Hoppdoc,

I am no expert so I shall be glad if the experts correct me.

SOme years ago when I wrote ana rticle on fine guns for an Indian magazine, Hannes Fanzoj of Johan Fanzoj sent me some information on two grades of Boehler steel that they used for their guns. There was a standard grade and a superior one called Super Blitz which they used to build thinner and lighter barrels. I have no idea whether this could be used for any parts other than barrels though if you work with a gunmaker he would be able to guide you.

What gun are you planning to build and have you decided on whom it is going to be by?

Good hunting!

--------------------
The Ark was made by amateurs. Experts built the Titanic.

Mehul Kamdar

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mickey
.416 member


Reged: 05/01/03
Posts: 4647
Loc: Pend Oreille Valley, Idaho
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: mehulkamdar]
      #78966 - 19/05/07 04:25 PM

Mehul

Any chance of posting your article here?

--------------------
Lovu Zdar
Mick

A Man of Pleasure, Enterprise, Wit and Spirit Rare Books, Big Game Hunting, English Rifles, Fishing, Explosives, Chauvinism, Insensitivity, Public Drunkenness and Sloth, Champion of Lost and Unpopular Causes.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hoppdoc
.400 member


Reged: 02/03/06
Posts: 1791
Loc: Southeastern USA
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: mickey]
      #78969 - 19/05/07 07:07 PM

One would think newer stronger lighter steels would make for great lighter easy pointing medium Doubles. It would be great to have a light 30.06 or 308-9.3 caliber Double ready for a qd scope and all day carry!! That sounds like fun!!

--------------------
An armed man is a citizen of his country, an unarmed man just a subject.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dnovo
.333 member


Reged: 21/02/05
Posts: 490
Loc: Chicago & SE Wisconsin
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: hoppdoc]
      #78977 - 19/05/07 09:09 PM

Sounds like the Merkel 141 w/scope in 30-06 we were discussing before. Dave

--------------------
Time Wounds All Heels

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
empirevr
.375 member


Reged: 03/09/06
Posts: 614
Loc: England,but now Italy.
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: dnovo]
      #78980 - 19/05/07 09:49 PM

Hopdoc, i was asking the same thing on another thread matey! We have the same curiosities.....

Steel is a weird swine when it comes to explanation.

Its so weird, on the one hand i have never had a tool that was new, which compared at all well with an old one. You buy a new fork or spade or what have you, and there is just no way it will be as strong as its grandaddy, but then with guns it seems to be a different matter, i think.......

Good luck anyway!

Ben

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hoppdoc
.400 member


Reged: 02/03/06
Posts: 1791
Loc: Southeastern USA
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: dnovo]
      #78991 - 19/05/07 11:22 PM

Dave-

How thin are the barrels? Is it the 141 action that light?

Does it balance well between the hands?

Do you have a lightweight 9.3x74R? How does it handle?

--------------------
An armed man is a citizen of his country, an unarmed man just a subject.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
AzGuy
.333 member


Reged: 23/03/06
Posts: 388
Loc: Prescott, Arizona, USA
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: dnovo]
      #78995 - 19/05/07 11:59 PM

Dave,

What does your Merkel 141 in 30/06 weigh?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Marrakai
.416 member


Reged: 09/01/03
Posts: 3599
Loc: Darwin, Top End of Australia
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: AzGuy]
      #79100 - 21/05/07 01:39 PM

Some strange assumptions here....

Brit doubles, and the better 'continental' offerings, were traditionally built to the correct weight for comfortable recoil management and muzzle control when close to DG. The idea that a lighter-weight gun could not have been built a hundred years ago because of material strength limitations is simply incorrect.

The truth is that makers at the time knew what the customer wanted/needed in a time when most DRs were hunted on foot against DG on a daily or weekly basis. The artificial PH-backed one-shot safari of today might permit a light-weight double-rifle shooter to happily survive his encounter with DG, but a light-weight heavy calibre DR would have gotten you killed sooner or later during the 'heyday' of African and Indian hunting.

--------------------
Marrakai
When the bull drops, the bullshit stops!
--------------------------------
www.marrakai-adventure.com.au

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
AzGuy
.333 member


Reged: 23/03/06
Posts: 388
Loc: Prescott, Arizona, USA
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: Marrakai]
      #79102 - 21/05/07 02:05 PM

Marrakai,

What does your 450/400 weigh?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Marrakai
.416 member


Reged: 09/01/03
Posts: 3599
Loc: Darwin, Top End of Australia
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: AzGuy]
      #79157 - 22/05/07 01:03 PM

Quote:

What does your 450/400 weigh?



Right on 10 lbs empty, perfect I reckon.

--------------------
Marrakai
When the bull drops, the bullshit stops!
--------------------------------
www.marrakai-adventure.com.au

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
NE450No2
.375 member


Reged: 10/01/03
Posts: 942
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: Marrakai]
      #79175 - 22/05/07 04:08 PM

Hopdoc
You are correct.

No matter how strong the steel is, a big calibre double needs a certain amount of weight to be "shootable".

My 450/400 weighs about 10 lbs 2 oz with its Murray leather shell carrier on the stock, but with no shells in it.

My 450 No2 has 28" bbls and weighs about 11 3/4 lbs with its shell carrier.
both rifles balance perfectly are comfortable to shoot and do not feel too heavy.

I have carried them many a mile.


Modern steel has enabled smaller calibre doubles to be made lighter. My 9,3x74R Chapuis weighs 7 1/4 lbs, early 303 doubles weighed 10 lbs or more.

The lightest sleekest of the new made doubles is the new Merkel on the 28ga frame with the 21" bbls. I have handled and shot one in 9,3x74R several rounds. I like it.

Since I have a 9,3 double and a 9,3 double rifle drilling, I would love to have one of the new Merkels in 308 WCF [as I have a lot of ammo for it], but for everyone else the 9,3x74R is a better calibre.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mehulkamdar
.416 member


Reged: 09/01/04
Posts: 3688
Loc: State of Ill-Annoy USA.
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: mickey]
      #79176 - 22/05/07 04:38 PM

Mickey,

Sending you a PM right after this.

Good hunting!

--------------------
The Ark was made by amateurs. Experts built the Titanic.

Mehul Kamdar

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mehulkamdar
.416 member


Reged: 09/01/04
Posts: 3688
Loc: State of Ill-Annoy USA.
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: hoppdoc]
      #79199 - 23/05/07 01:28 AM

Not going into the weight thing at all, but Flodman in Sweden build their U/O double rifles with very advanced Stavax and other steels in the action.

And, again not weight related, but the Gobec firm in Austria make Damascus barrels for Flodman or for anyone else who wants them, in virtually calibre or specification.

Good hunting!

--------------------
The Ark was made by amateurs. Experts built the Titanic.

Mehul Kamdar

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
400NitroExpress
.400 member


Reged: 26/11/03
Posts: 1154
Loc: Lone Star State
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: Marrakai]
      #79202 - 23/05/07 02:22 AM

Quote:

Some strange assumptions here....

Brit doubles, and the better 'continental' offerings, were traditionally built to the correct weight for comfortable recoil management and muzzle control when close to DG. The idea that a lighter-weight gun could not have been built a hundred years ago because of material strength limitations is simply incorrect.

The truth is that makers at the time knew what the customer wanted/needed in a time when most DRs were hunted on foot against DG on a daily or weekly basis.



Entirely true. The British makers could, and DID, build some ridiculously underweight DRs on special order. However, most of their clientele wanted nothing to do with such rubbish, so only a handful of such curios were built.

My .400 is 10lbs, 2oz with 26" barrels. Perfect.

--------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hoppdoc
.400 member


Reged: 02/03/06
Posts: 1791
Loc: Southeastern USA
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: 400NitroExpress]
      #79239 - 23/05/07 11:17 AM

Whether it has been applied or not there have been advances in metallurgy and technology over the last 100 yrs.

It would seem that the technology is available to manufacture a Double with lighter components, acceptable durability,faster lock time and a stronger action. In theory such guns could weigh the same as bolt guns with one barrel but have the 2nd shot capabilty that Doubles enjoy.Recoil should be no worse than a similar barrel bolt gun of the same weight.

Are the lighter weight 9.3's and Merkel 141's accomplishing this? Are they more desirable over their predecessors? Sounds like these calibers may be becoming a better mousetrap.

Is there a lack of similar applied technology used for Big Doubles or avoidance of techno applications due to weight requirements for recoil management?? Are we making better stronger Big Doubles today or are they inferior to their predecessors?

--------------------
An armed man is a citizen of his country, an unarmed man just a subject.

Edited by hoppdoc (23/05/07 11:31 AM)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bonanza
.400 member


Reged: 17/05/04
Posts: 2335
Loc: South Carolina
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: hoppdoc]
      #79263 - 23/05/07 10:17 PM

From Rifle Magazine:

"From about 1899 on for the .45-70 and 1903 for the .33 WCF, barrels were nickel steel with a tensile strength of approximately 100,000 psi."

From Encyclopedia of metallurgy for 4140 steel:

"In the heat treated condition tensile strengths of 170,000 PSI. for small section and 140,000 PSI for larger section are attended all combined with good ductility and resistance to shock."

Note:

Rifle barrels are usually made from 4130 and 4140, but are not heat treated. Heat treating makes steel more brittle. The tensile strength is still greater than 100,000 psi.


In conclusion:

The discipline of making steel in the nitro era (1898-2007) has been such that a sufficient margin of headroom is afforded.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hoppdoc
.400 member


Reged: 02/03/06
Posts: 1791
Loc: Southeastern USA
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: bonanza]
      #79275 - 24/05/07 02:37 AM

I think with Big Doubles the maybe the weight requirements for recoil can allow older guns to "get by" with less stronger steels than smaller calibers.The distances and game involved do not benefit the shooter by lighter rifles and faster velocities.

How about a 9.0-9.5 pound scoped 450/400 with "modern double" with stronger lighter steels, stronger action, good balance between the hands,shooting a higher velocity 400 gr bullet for non dangerous game at longer ranges?? I shoot a 416 rigby rifle about that weight at a much faster velocity.
Not needed?? For longer distance shots(out to a maximum of 300yds) a 100-150 fps increase in velocity flattens the trajectory by 5" and increases the energy delivered by almost 20% at maximum distance.Thus we would have a scoped Double rifle that would be more flexible at distance.

Pressure concerns?? I don't know.Just have to evaluate and see if a modern Double action can safely tolerate higher pressures.This may be a pipe dream but it is intriguing--

--------------------
An armed man is a citizen of his country, an unarmed man just a subject.

Edited by hoppdoc (24/05/07 02:38 AM)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
400NitroExpress
.400 member


Reged: 26/11/03
Posts: 1154
Loc: Lone Star State
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: hoppdoc]
      #79278 - 24/05/07 03:06 AM

Quote:

Whether it has been applied or not there have been advances in metallurgy and technology over the last 100 yrs.



Which is in no way significant in the DR context.

Quote:

It would seem that the technology is available to manufacture a Double with lighter components, acceptable durability,faster lock time and a stronger action. In theory such guns could weigh the same as bolt guns with one barrel but have the 2nd shot capabilty that Doubles enjoy.Recoil should be no worse than a similar barrel bolt gun of the same weight.



Again, nothing has changed here. This was done 100 years ago, just as it can be done today, it's just that it's a non-starter. Once optimum weight for shootability and handling is achieved, making it lighter just because you can is just plain backward. You can have all of the 9 lb .400s the gods have earmarked for me. One of the reasons I LIKE doubles in the larger calibers is because bolt rifles are so often so stupidly light for caliber.

Quote:

Are the lighter weight 9.3's and Merkel 141's accomplishing this? Are they more desirable over their predecessors? Sounds like these calibers may be becoming a better mousetrap.



Well, they ARE lighter, but I think they're an example of "lighter just because we can" gone berserk.

Despite having my double rifle needs covered and needing another like a hole in the head, I've been kicking around a new Chapuis in 9.3 for years. It's the price that keeps it in my mind. I look at the overall build and regulation quality and see a screaming deal for the money. Despite the "coach gun" barrels, I talk myself into it...and then I shoot another one (I've shot four or five, the last just a few weeks ago), and then I'm off the idea again. At 7.25 pounds bare, it's just too goddamned light. It would swing oh so MUCH better on moving game (which is what it's for) one and a quarter pounds heavier. I know because I've been using an 8 lb, 14 oz medium bore double for years.

As for the Merkel 141 in 9.3....(cue "Twilight Zone" music)

Quote:

Is there a lack of similar applied technology used for Big Doubles or avoidance of techno applications due to weight requirements for recoil management?? Are we making better stronger Big Doubles today or are they inferior to their predecessors?



No. Some are too light for caliber, and I haven't observed the new rifles as being as durable as the old.

--------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hoppdoc
.400 member


Reged: 02/03/06
Posts: 1791
Loc: Southeastern USA
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: 400NitroExpress]
      #79293 - 24/05/07 06:53 AM

I have some 7-8 pound rifles that swing, balance, and point great.

I have a 9 pound 416 bolt(scope included) which is more fun to carry than my heavier guns but a real eye opener to shoot.Indeed ANY gun that smacks the shooter hard gets old.

I do not have enough "gun time" on the range to definitely determine my preferences re:Doubles.Indeed I have only one Double-a 500NE.


400 NE
You are a wealth of information and would have hundreds of other Double shooters agreeing--

It may be that there is no need to build a well balanced Double lighter,stronger,and shooting a higher velocity round but I would sure like to shoot enough Doubles to know viable options.Until I shoot such a gun it is hard to determine personal preferences.

--------------------
An armed man is a citizen of his country, an unarmed man just a subject.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bonanza
.400 member


Reged: 17/05/04
Posts: 2335
Loc: South Carolina
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: hoppdoc]
      #79295 - 24/05/07 07:22 AM

We have gone off topic. This is a good topic, as it presents a mystery to many people. As I previously said, the steel at the turn of the century was sufficiently strong for any firearm made. Manufactures use what is available and it's 4140 now. It is about 50% stronger but that delta is never brought to bear, except in certain actions. The Merkel is an example. The 20 gauge action is heat treated 4130 to resist stretching. Why use a shotgun action in the fist place? Cost.

So owning an shooting a pre-war double is just as safe as it is today with a new double.

--------------------


"Speak Precisely" G. Gordon Liddy.

"Life is absurd, chaotic and we must define its purpose with our actions" Abert Camus

"I''m the dude playing a dude disguised as another dude."

"Yo! Mr. White"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Grizzly
.333 member


Reged: 05/12/05
Posts: 359
Loc: Dallas, Texas, USA
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: bonanza]
      #79298 - 24/05/07 08:02 AM

I think for the top Brit makers, this is true. They tested the hell out of the barrels to insure they would not be a problem.

One big advantage I see in modern steel is a lower level of impurities. I should say possible impurities. The process is a function of the type ore used (and where it comes from), the quality of additives (like coke - the coal derivitive, not the plant) and modern methods of testing and quality control.

I am sure that there was a lot of QC done for the older Brit steel, and probably a fair share of rejects.

The Brits had some rigorous testting protocol. One dead hunter was all they needed to advertise for the competition.

And it comes full circle - the quality on the better Brit doubles is there - but to get there required more trial and error and actual testing.

One would THINK that the modern steel making process would keep the cost of a new double down. And it probably does, to some extent.

But, the process of building a high quality double still involves over 1000 man hours, start to finish. So a $75,000 rifle costs you about $75 an hour in labor. When you think about it, not a bad deal considering your plumber probably makes that much!

--------------------
SCI Life Member
DSC Life Member
DRSS Member

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Will
.333 member


Reged: 04/02/03
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: Grizzly]
      #79301 - 24/05/07 08:46 AM

Whew! Talk about prejudices!

The end of the barrels on the Chapuis 9.3x74R are thin where most of the weight reduction comes from. Though I'm not up to stuff on my cylinder stress calculations, it is not far-fetched that the barrels on a 470 or whatver could be just as thin, from a strength standpoint.

The pressure of a 470 and a 9.3x74R are no different so why not have a lightweight 470 or 450/400? If one can take the recoil abuse, why not?

I guess everyone is different but the 410 double shotgun feel to the 7.3 lb. Chapuis 9.3x74R can hardly be compared to a 10+ pound 470.

Even John Taylor several times said to the effect that doubles were obese. An 8 lb. 450/400 and a 9 lb. 470 are still too obese but they would be better than they are now!

(this should get 400 NE going!).

--------------------
_________________________________________________
Bill Stewart

Once you have been amongst them, there is no such thing as too much gun.

Edited by Will (24/05/07 08:47 AM)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CptCurlAdministrator
.450 member


Reged: 01/05/04
Posts: 5284
Loc: Fincastle, Botetourt County, V...
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: Will]
      #79313 - 24/05/07 11:57 AM

There's one thing for sure: every person has a different preference for weight, balance, and "swing". There is no "one size fits all" in double rifles any more than in a Sunday suit.

The Brits followed one line of reasoning when it comes to weight and balance. Often we see the Continentals with another line of reasoning. In my opinion a 10 lb. .303 Brit. is WAY over weight, yet it is common in the British trade. As a comparison we see zillions of 7.5 to 8.0 lb. 8mm rifles out of Germany and Austria. Say what you want, but I'll prefer the light 8mm's. I think they are just perfect in their class, and the Brits never got the concept.

I see no reason why a .450/.400 can't be handy at 9.0 lbs. It doesn't kick that much. We see many bolt guns in .375 H&H Mag that weigh 8.5 lbs. and don't take issue with them.

In summary, the 10.0 lb and up standard of British DR's is a mystery to me. We can blindly sign on to the philosophy, but that doesn't mean they were right.

JMHO,
Curl

--------------------
RoscoeStephenson.com

YOUR DOUBLE RIFLE IS YOUR BEST FRIEND.



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Grizzly
.333 member


Reged: 05/12/05
Posts: 359
Loc: Dallas, Texas, USA
Re: New Steel vs Old steel [Re: Will]
      #79316 - 24/05/07 12:11 PM

Quote:

Whew! Talk about prejudices!

Even John Taylor several times said to the effect that doubles were obese. (this should get 400 NE going!).



Light ain't a good thing. There is at least one premium bullet maker that will not sell ammo to those thin barrel owners.



--------------------
SCI Life Member
DSC Life Member
DRSS Member

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)


Previous topic Previous   View all topics Index   Next topic Next   Threaded Mode Threaded  

Extra information
0 registered and 562 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  CptCurl 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 7586

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us NitroExpress.com

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact


Copyright 2003 to 2011 - all rights reserved