This was stated by a client, who had seen a H&H fall apart after fiering 10 rounds of Barnes Solids. Does any of you Gents have any opinions on this subject? Experienced opinions would be welcome.

Thanks,

It is not homogenous bullets per se that damage doubles.

It is any bullet that causes the barrels to flex an excessive amount.

Note that the better English double makers recommend minimizing the number of Woodleigh solids that are fired in a double rifle because Woodleigh solids have a steel liner. That means the bullet does not obturate, so the barrel has to flex when the bullet travels down it.

Same problem only worse with Barnes super solids.

Other Homogenous bullets, such as those from GS Custom, North Fork and Bridger, use thin driving bands that engrave on the rifling very easily and do not cause the barrels to flex much at all. Those bullets are excellent for use in doubles.

So it is a much more complicated question than just whether or not to use homogenous bullets.

The answer is an emphatic YES! Homogenous projectiles can damage double rifles. Being of a solid and hard material, these projectiles do not compress as they pass down the bore and, therefore, they cause excessive swelling of the barrel and this swelling can break the bonding between barrels and ribs destroying the regulation of the rifle so that it will then shoot eratically with all ammunition.

These comments come from personal experience where I had to send a Chapuis 9.3x74R back to the factory, twice, because I didn't know the dangers of shooting homogenous projectiles through doubles and it was only after the problem occured, the second time, that I found out what was going on. Prior to this 'awakening', I had a couple of loads developed with Barnes X bullets that shot exceptionally well, but after firing about 30 of these loads, suddenly, all accuracy was lost and I couldn't get the gun to shoot with ANY ammo.

I am not aware of any problems with Woodleigh solids but I am now very, very wary about which projectiles I shoot through my doubles and I take every opportunity to warn other double owners because no-one warned me and I learnt the hard way!

I have also heard comments that homogenous projectiles can damage old single barrel guns, too. The damage, in this case, is with the older and softer barrel steels that were sometimes used back then, it is possible for the homogenous projectiles to create an 'imprint' of the rifling on the outside of the barrel. Anyone heard of this before?

quote:

Originally posted by BwanaBob:
The answer is an emphatic YES! Homogenous projectiles can damage double rifles. Being of a solid and hard material, these projectiles do not compress as they pass down the bore and, therefore, they cause excessive swelling of the barrel and this swelling can break the bonding between barrels and ribs destroying the regulation of the rifle so that it will then shoot eratically with all ammunition.

This is all absolutely true, but not of "homogenous projectiles". It is only true of "homogenous projectiles that are not of a driving band design". It is absolutely false with regard to homogenous bullets of a genuine driving band design (GS Custom, Bridger and North Fork).

So it is a lot more complex than just "homogenous bullets" or not, because if you think Woodleigh solids are kind to barrels, think again!

Is this problem only an issue with double rifles?

Can anyone confirm that some early doubles with particularly thin barrel walls (as in pre-WWI high end) actually split from bronze solids or is that internet legend? I've heard of both split barrels and in some lesser cases the bullet deformed the riflimg enough to imprint the outside of the barrel with a positive profile of the rifling.

quote:

Originally posted by Snowwolfe:
Is this problem only an issue with double rifles?

Haven't you ever seen a Steyr-Mannlicher?

quote:

Originally posted by Mickey1:

quote:

Originally posted by Snowwolfe:
Is this problem only an issue with double rifles?

Haven't you ever seen a Steyr-Mannlicher?

Mickey1, what do you mean by the above statement?

I admit my ignorance on this topic. But don't most double rifle users use solids when hunting dangerous game?

quote:

Originally posted by Snowwolfe:
I admit my ignorance on this topic. But don't most double rifle users use solids when hunting dangerous game?

Snowolfe -

Yes, but there are solids and then there are "homogenous solids". Solids in the "traditional" sense refers to bullets which are not soft pointed. Originally, they were made from the same materials, but formed basically the opposite of soft points.

With soft points the bullet jacket (cup-shaped) had the lead core inserted from the front, then the bullet was swaged to shape, usually a pointed or round-nosed design, though sometimes flat nosed. At any rate, it was the open end that was swaged to form the nose, squeezing the lead and jacket to form either a hollow point with no lead exposed, or a bullet nose WITH lead exposed.

In so-called solids, used commonly in double rifles and other rifles for best penetration without expansion, the lead core was inserted into the jacket the same basic way, but the open end was swaged flat to become the base, and the closed end of the jacket was swaged to form the nose. So it was truthfully a "solid-nosed" bullet, that is, a nose uninterrupted by any holes or other metal, not a completely "solid" bullet. With those bullets there was little if any expansion of the nose on impact with flesh and bone, how much generally depending on what the jacket was made of. (Rigby commonly sold bullets with steel jackets with a gilding metal wash over them.)

None-the-less, those bullets still had lead cores and were fairly easily reshaped by the rifling/bore as the bullet passed down the barrel(s).


Homogenous bullets have NO core. they are all one chunk of metal. If the metal is a hard metal, and there is no lead core to allow the bullet to easily deform to fit the bore, things can get a bit dicey. That is especially true with double rifles where the two barrels are soldered together and the tubes are often thinner (and weaker) than heavy, thick, single shot or magazine rifle barrels.

There is a lot more to this subject, of course, but within this space, maybe those generalities will suffice.

tiggertate, graeme wright addresses this in "shooting the british double" and while i have the book and read it thru has been a while but going off memory i believe he has photos of split barrels from shooting current xtra thick and/or steel jacketed bullets. i do recall the risk is real but not sure of photos. may have been anecdotal but nonetheless he claims has in fact happened.

Thank you Alberta, Does using homogenous present any danger to a bolt action rifle or a handgun?
Reason I ask is I am a fan of the Barnes homogenous solids.

Double rifle barrels are essentially soldered together, by means of an intervening rib. Hence their susceptibility to disassembly, or separating, from overstressing either one, or the other, or both, of the barrels, e.g., with a homogenous solid.

That problem does not afflict single barreled arms.

As for whether Woodleigh steel jacketed solids may cause such a problem, that seems highly doubtful to me. Kynoch, after all, also used steel jacketed solids, and that was in the heyday of the British double. The steel is sheathed in gilding metal, which is what engages the rifling, after all.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:

As for whether Woodleigh steel jacketed solids may cause such a problem, that seems highly doubtful to me.

The big name London gunmakers advise against shooting a lot of Woodleigh solids through their rifles.

Recall that the original Kynoch solids were tapered bullets with tapered jackets, so they could swage into a barrel without pressure spikes. Woodleigh solids have a parallel shank, not tapered, they do not have a tapered jacket, and they have a very rigid steel liner which prevents the bullet from flexing, meaning that the barrel must flex.

Woodleigh make their bullets on the same profile as the Kynochs, which is why they regulate so well in the classic British doubles.

As for tapered bullets, not all Kynoch bullets were tapered. Some bullets, such as the .470 NE, were designed to be tapered. Others, indeed most others, were not.

John Taylor himself commented on the preferability of parallel sided bullets, such as the .500/.465 and the .450s, to the tapered .470, which he said tended to fishtail.

The relative "rigidity" of the steel jackets seems to me to be irrelevant, as long as the gilding metal cladding is thick enough to take the rifling.

I have shot Woodleigh solids in several calibers and on many recovered bullets never has the engraving of the rifling penetrated to bare steel.

quote:

Originally posted by willmckee:
tiggertate, graeme wright addresses this in "shooting the british double" and while i have the book and read it thru has been a while but going off memory i believe he has photos of split barrels from shooting current xtra thick and/or steel jacketed bullets. i do recall the risk is real but not sure of photos. may have been anecdotal but nonetheless he claims has in fact happened.

I only have the 1st Edition (1996) of this book which makes no reference to barrel damage at all. In fact, Graeme even suggests trying the homogenous solids - obviously, this was before the problem was known.

I might email Graeme and see what he has to say about this thread and if he has any newer info on the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
Woodleigh make their bullets on the same profile as the Kynochs, which is why they regulate so well in the classic British doubles.

A common myth, but false. The nose profile is similar. But Woodleigh does not use the tapered shank that Kynoch used.

quote:

The relative "rigidity" of the steel jackets seems to me to be irrelevant, as long as the gilding metal cladding is thick enough to take the rifling.

Since the steel does not obturate, how do you think the engraving occurs? The copper does not magically disappear. In a driving band bullet, such as GS Custom, the copper is pushed into the groove adjacent it, but there is no such groove on a Woodleigh solid. And with no obturation, that means you get barrel flex. Which is why the number of Woodleigh solids shot in a British double should be minimized.

500 grains is correct. Modern Woodleigh solids afe a lot stouter than the older Kynoch ones. Also North Fork "homogenious" solids with the bore riding ridges, with the body less than bore diameter, are easier on the bbl than most other bullets. This is true with the design of his Cup point and Flat Point solids.
NOT SO with his Soft Points.

quote:

Originally posted by BwanaBob:
I only have the 1st Edition (1996) of this book which makes no reference to barrel damage at all. In fact, Graeme even suggests trying the homogenous solids - obviously, this was before the problem was known.

The second edition of "Shooting the British Double Rifle" (1999) has an entire chapter (Chapter 13) on barrel damage in double rifles.

Wright's hypotheses on the causes of barrel damage in double rifles do include the possibility that modern steel jacketed bullets may be a cause.

Wright says that Kynoch solids were typically (note, "typically," not "all") tapered in external profile. He also notes that they had steel jackets that were internally tapered from a thicker frontal area to thinner side walls. He adds that modern steel jacketed solids have thicker steel jackets that are not tapered, either externally or internally. Both types of solid were and are clad in a several thousandths of an inch coating of gilding metal, which is what is engraved by the rifling. I note also that modern Kynamco ammunition uses Woodleigh softs and solids.

Wright's broader hypothesis on double rifle barrel damage is more to the point, though. He believes, and presents ample evidence to support his opinion, that older doubles are more prone to barrel damage, and sometimes even splitting, because they feature softer barrel steels, thinner barrels and varying, and often very tight, chamber, leade and bore and groove dimensions. A tight set of thin barrels, of softer than modern steel, may indeed be damaged, or even crack and split, if they are used with any full caliber, "hard" projectile, but that should surprise no one.

Wright recommends that, before firing any old or classic English double, its chamber should be cast and its barrel slugged. Many of these rifles--which were all hand made, of course--have non-standard internal barrel dimensions and cannot be relied upon to be up to modern industry standards. Wright even goes so far as to recommend that the barrels be x-rayed to rule out the possibility of any cracks or incipient splits.

The question for me, though, is different. Since I would not want to rely upon a 75-100 year old double rifle against dangerous game, I would want to know whether modern ammunition, loaded with modern, industry standard, steel jacketed solids will, if used regularly, cause barrel damage in a modern double rifle (English-made or otherwise) using modern barrel steel and chambered and bored to modern industry standards.

Chapuis have already told me that Woodleigh solids and Federal Trophy Bonded Sledgehammer solids are warranted for use in their double rifles--but that monometal solids are not. I believe, but I am not sure, that the same is true of Searcy. I have made some inquiries of various makers, including some London gunmakers, and will let you know their responses, if I get any. I have also asked Woodleigh for further information on the differences between their solid bullets and original Kynochs, and I will also share their response, should I get one.

quote:

I would want to know whether modern ammunition, loaded with modern, industry standard, steel jacketed solids will, if used regularly, cause barrel damage in a modern double rifle

MR. Exactly! That is why I own two modern doubles, one a Kregihoff in 500/416, and the other a modern built 450 x 3 1/4. I believe that modern steels should withstand the stresses better. However, it is quite possible that a steady diet of Woodleigh steel jackets
might result in separation of barrels and/or rib. I tend to agree with 500 grains about the mono GS Customs (vs. the steel jacket). These are solid copper and perform extremely well (from the acuracy perspective) in my 500/416 and 416 Rigby.
Having found a load for my 450 using Woodleigh steel jackets, I do not plan on shooting a steady diet of these for practice!
Peter.

Thanks, all of you, for very helpful information.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by Mickey1:

quote:

Originally posted by Snowwolfe:
Is this problem only an issue with double rifles?

Haven't you ever seen a Steyr-Mannlicher?

Mickey1, what do you mean by the above statement?

Check out the barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by Mickey1:

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by Mickey1:

quote:

Originally posted by Snowwolfe:
Is this problem only an issue with double rifles?

Haven't you ever seen a Steyr-Mannlicher?

Mickey1, what do you mean by the above statement?

Check out the barrel.

Mickey, that is not caused by monolithic bullets! These rifles come that way from the factory. The marks are left on the barrels for the first few inches,as decoration, and are the result of cold hammerforgeing, of the barrels! There has never been a rifle barrel with a twist rate that tight (about 1 turn in 2")! Those are damn tough barrels!

MacD37,

You are absolutely wrong about those markings. They were caused by firing Speer AGS tungsten solids in that rifle. This is a well-known phenomenon.

Since the tungsten does not obturate, reverse, outside the barrel engraving occurs. That is why use of such bullets in any Steyr rifle should be minimized.

500NE GSC FN turned copper bullet: Fired and recovered on the left and unfired on the right.

There is no way that this monometallic copper bullet can damage a barrel. The bullet shank rides on the faces of the lands and all the rifling has to do is trim through the driving bands.

In the case of a smooth bullet, the displaced metal is compressed into the bullet body and requires great force.


With a drive band bullet, the copper is displaced rearwards where there is room for it. You can take an unfired GSC FN bullet, drop it into the chamber and tap it through the barrel, all the way to the muzzle, using only a copper rod. There is no way this can be done with any other bullet I am aware of.

A picture of a Steyr Prohunter in .260 new in the box can be found at: http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976648840.htm .




Dan

MR,
It appears that the rifle above had an ungain twist barrel (starting fast and slowing down). How curious.

I wouldn't risk the barrels of my doubles with non banded homogenous bullets when there are safer options available. I think the Woodleigh solid and soft would be easier to get to shoot to the same point of aim compaired to mixing a conventional soft and monometal bullet. I'd like to hear of the experiences of getting your double to regulate with monometals from those of you who have tried them.

Dave

I have had no problems getting my Kreighoff 500/416 to shoot extremely well with 380 gr.GS Custom FN's. By that, I mean finding a load that will shoot them to the same point as my Hornady 400 gr. softs, as well as consistently shoot the right and left barrels very close together at 50 yards.
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
MacD37,

You are absolutely wrong about those markings. They were caused by firing Speer AGS tungsten solids in that rifle. This is a well-known phenomenon.

Since the tungsten does not obturate, reverse, outside the barrel engraving occurs. That is why use of such bullets in any Steyr rifle should be minimized.

Mrlexma, look very closely at the so-called "RIFLEING MARKS" on the picture you posted, and measure the rate of twist. They would measure no more than one turn in three inches! No rifle I know of has ever been rifled that tight! As I said before, this is not rifleing pressed to the outside of the barrel, but the result of cold hammer forgeing, left on by the factory. Look at the picture of a new, in the box, Steyr Pro Hunter posted by DanEP!

As far as the Speer AGS tungsten bullets go I wouldn't use them in anything. In the first place, they are not better than any good solid, too expensive, and kill no better than a good Wooliegh solid, or even as good as a North Fork flat point pressure ring solid! In any event the only mono-metal solid I would use in a double rifle, new, or old, is the North Fork.

You're both wrong. That barrel was turned on so tight it twisted. Arnold's other brother is a barrel installer at Steyr.

They have straight rifling out of the forge and get a proprietary twist rate depending on the steroid schedule that month. Faster twists are installed on high steroid days and slow twist calibers are installed during cool-down or by apprentices.

Gerard and 500gns,

thanks for pointing out the facts on true quality monometal pills.
Their is a great deal price difference between Barnes and GSC, purely cause some are truelly engineered and that takes time/money.
If a person can afford a double and/or Africa, I dont see the price of your pills as an issue.
Hell i dont even see an issue in the price, if just busting a couple hundred hogs a year,some fellas piss that much $$ up against a wall each week in the bar.
And from what I understand of them, you could also insert a tungsten core without loosing any of your other engineered benefits that your pills exhibit.
Keep up the good work.

Being an avid Steyr collecter I can tell you that the barrel will actually shorten the more you shoot them. If my camera was working I could show you a ssg that had a 26 inch barrel that is now 20 inches. The more you shoot them the shorter and fatter the barrel gets. Also the rate of twist increases so to keep getting good accuracy you must constantly change bullet weights. I have quit using the 20 inch ssg because if it gets below 16 inches I will have to register it as a short barreled rifle. Hope this helps.

I almost hate to break the humor, but I was reading this thread because I was interested in stresses of solids of various kinds -- and particularly African Grand Slam on rifling. The comment seems to be that the tungsten core is too large, to hard, to allow the outer softer jacket to seal (obturate) with the rifling, and can even beat down the lands. Apart from the Steyr discussion, are AGS slugs hard on rifling?

Dan

Dan,

I cannot answer your question, but there were reports that the Speer AGS has been discontinued. So unless you run into a large batch of old stock, it's not likely to be an issue.

I *have* a small stock of them (tad pricey) -- hence the question.

I've seen the rumors, but not seen anything official -- probably have to wait for the Shot Show.

Dan

Let us not be party to an unfounded rumour. Speer AGS bullets are no harder on a barrel than any other Speer bullet. The fact that they are slightly more base heavy than a lead core bullet, is offset by the fact that they are also slightly shorter than a lead core bullet. Weight for weight, the twist requirement for a Speer AGS remains very similar to that of a lead core bullet, despite the base heavy condition.

Also, I have a Steyr in 375H&H and the barrel is probably the best part of that rifle. I have measured the twist rates on more factory barrels than I care to mention and the Steyr barrels are always right. After using mine for all the development work on 10 375 bullets, it shows no sign of giving up. The stock and the plastic bits on it is something else though.

quote:

Originally posted by DanEP:
I *have* a small stock of them (tad pricey) -- hence the question.

I've seen the rumors, but not seen anything official -- probably have to wait for the Shot Show.

Dan

The engraving is done in the first inch of barrel which is obviously stout enough in a Steyr or other bolt gun to displace the bronze alloy used in the AGS. There may be some featherweight contours like the Winchester that would suffer but no one makes calibers in that contour that shoot solids.


That was why I asked about the older doubles. I assume that the barrel steel ahead of the throat area is small enough in cross section that the barrel steel is stressed to the point of elasticity and the bullet doesn't shrink to nominal land and groove diameters. Farther down the barrel, the thinner steel is stressed to plasticity and actually displaces permanently. That is the only way I can see the bullet being able to actually iron a reverse image of the rifling on the outside.

But simple elasticity would damage the soldered rib joints too.

I would be cautious, regardless. Barrel life is a real issue for the top 50 BGM competitors that shoot homogenous soilds lke the Barnes bullet. If you go back through early issues of the FCSSA magazine, you see countless references to match barrels going away after 800-1000 rounds.

It was thought then (I haven't kept up with it) that it was becasue the bronze bullets were ironing the bore and causing expansion. It was definitely NOT throat erosion. This was with really THICK match barrels at pressures no higher than 300 Win Mag. That's one (of several) reasons bore-riders and wasp waisted bullets became popular again.

So 30-40, maybe not a problem. But shoot enough and you may overstress your barrel.

I think it safe to say that homogenous bullets of softer alloys closer to annealed copper or guilding metal are not creating similar problems as witnessed by the normal barrel life of ball ammo and Nosler 50 cal A-Max bullets, Barnes X and of course, GS bullets.

What about A-square's Monolithic Solids? Anyone used them? They claim that the bullet design and alloy lubricity gives them less resistance to rifling imprint than normal steel-jacketed solids.

He does make a good point in their book: Once the bullet has moved its own length down the barrel, isn't it fully engraved by the rifling at that point? From then on, all it has to do is keep those grooves/lands lined up as it travels and exits.

If a bullet is too hard to be engraved by the rifling, I could see it causing this bulge moving down the barrel. (I get a mental image of the big buildup of water moving down the hose as Bugs Bunny turns on the faucet for Elmer Fudd...) If that were the case, recovering the fired bullet would show less than full-depth rifling marks. Has this been documented? Once the bullet has been engraved to full depth by the rifling (deformed), there shouldn't be any further force needed by the rifling (other than to impart spin, which is not a deformation) - correct?

Bulge -- and blowby

Dan