I must confess that the subject of solids in doubles confuses me. I have read the posts about the dangers of shooting bullets such as Barnes in a double, but it seems like other solids are okay. Is it okay to shoot ANY solid in double? If so, what solids are okay to shoot in a double? Specifically, are Woodleigh solids okay to shoot in double.

Confused in Houston

I am a novice with double rifles, but from what I understand it is NOT OK to shoot a monolithic solid, such as the old Barnes, in a DR.

Some of the new monolithic solids have grooves cut into them where the rifling will engage, the barrel is not having to SWAGE DOWN the whole bearing surface of the bullet.

I have a modern double, a Merkel, and will shoot some North Fork solids, they are grooved so the rifling does not swage the whole bearing surface. Look at NORTHFORK.COM, I think that is their web site and look at their bullets.

Northfork does not make a .510 bullet.

I have been using Woodleigh solids in my Krieghoff 470 without harm.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Specifically, are Woodleigh solids okay to shoot in double.

Confused in Houston

Yes, but keep them to a minimum as they are much harder on a double than Woodleigh softs.

A true driving band solid, such as from www.gscustom.co.za or www.northforkbullets.com is even easier on a double than a Woodleigh.

Mike

You may well, if you have not done so already, source out Graeme Wright's excellent book "Loading for the British Double Rifle" now in its 2nd edition.

Graeme covers in some depth the reported phenomonens associated with using homogenous bullets in the relatively thin walled double rifle barrels and also some of the inherent "risks" of using contemporary heavy walled stell jacketed solids.

Having spoken to Steve Cranston, double rifle regulator for Holland and Holland, who has regulated most, if not all, of Hollands production of double rifles for the last 10 or more years, he does confirm that in regulating they stick mainly to soft nosed ammunition and once final regulation is achieved, then fire a few solids (usually with the Woodleigh bullet) to check that they too regulate to the same point of impact.

David Little of Kynoch, who is a close friend, has also affirmed this to be the most preferable method.

The reason for this are expalined to some depth in the above book, in short it is not just the surface hardness of the bullet material but the malleability or lack of it that temporarily causes barrel expansion as the bullet travels towards the muzzle, with single metal solids, in extreme circumstances the expansion, albeit slight, has been known to cause the joining of the ribs at the muzzle to break free and for the rifle to loose regulation.

I am sure other factors also influence potential problems, the above is just one possible explanation.

As 500 grains has explained, bullets with annular grooves which reduce bearing surface along the shank of the single metal bullets may well be the way forward

I believe the book is called Shooting The British Double Rifle and it is an excellent book on DR's.

In order to acheive the fine balance and maintain the desired barrel length, most better-made British doubles and some other continental guns had extraordinarily thin barrels, especially near the muzzle. So thin, in fact that mono-metal solids will stretch the steel as descibed above or worse. There have even been reports of reverse-impression of the rifling on the ouside.

I had a discussion of this issue with Cliff LaBaounty once (he used to rebore a lot of doubles) and he said he had original guns in his shop with as little as 80 thousandths wall thickness on some barrels at the muzzle.

I would be scared to shoot ANY monos and very few WSoodleighs in that fine 475 of yours. But I would shoot either in a Searcy all day long.

Holland & Holland as well as 500 grs have it right.
There isn't any doubt that the Woodleigh or any other steel jacketed solid puts a much greater strain on the barrels and joining than soft nose bullets. I really see no reason to subject either of my doubles to that added strain. As long as you fire a few solids to check that impact is the same as for softs there is no reason to shoot a lot of solids to prepare for a hunt. Save the solids for the "real deal".

Another problem with Woodleigh solids, is that they copper foul much worse that soft nose bullets. At least they do in my German 465 H&H and my Searcy 470.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
So thin, in fact that mono-metal solids will stretch the steel as descibed above or worse.

This is only true for non-driving band configurations. True driving band mono-metal solids are the gentlest bullet of all. You must consider both the material that the bullet is made from AND the physical structure of the bullet. A true driving band structure reduces stress on barrels well below what is imposed by Woodleighs. True driving band solids include solids from www.gscustom.co.za and www.northforkbullets.com, but NOT Barnes.

Minimum barrel wall thickness in the pre-war British double rifles was typically .090" to .100". Holland's were sometimes slightly thinner. I measured a Dominion .465 recently that was .086".

The Woodleigh solid has a lead core and compresses relatively easily. In sizing down standard bullets for a rifle with a tight bore, I've found the Woodleigh solid somewhat harder to compress than their soft, but not much. I've never had a problem with them. I would never fire a mono like the NF in a double rifle.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
So thin, in fact that mono-metal solids will stretch the steel as descibed above or worse.

This is only true for non-driving band configurations. True driving band mono-metal solids are the gentlest bullet of all. You must consider both the material that the bullet is made from AND the physical structure of the bullet. A true driving band structure reduces stress on barrels well below what is imposed by Woodleighs. True driving band solids include solids from www.gscustom.co.za and www.northforkbullets.com, but NOT Barnes.

I agree with all that but which metal? The two companies you picked use solid copper which is much more forgiving than the naval bronze used in a lot of the others.

I suppose I should have made clear I was talking about bronze, even if banded like the new Barnes.

The Barnes banded bullet doesn't fall into 500 Grains exception since the bands are too wide front to back.

Compare them to a North Fork and you will see the difference.

I believe Bridger Bullets are bronze and have the true driving bands like NF or GS. Unfortunately, availability is spotty due to the illness of the owner.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:


The Woodleigh solid has a lead core and compresses relatively easily.

Not so due to the rigid steel liner between the copper jacket and the lead core. That is why the British gunmakers do not recommend a steady diet of Woodleigh solids even for brand new doubles.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:

I agree with all that but which metal? The two companies you picked use solid copper which is much more forgiving than the naval bronze used in a lot of the others.

For example, if we are talking about a bullet that obturates easily, such as a traditional copper jacket/lead core bullet, then a driving band structure is not necessary. With harder materials, such as solid copper or solid brass/bronze, then a true driving band design will eliminate undue barrel stresses. The Woodleigh solid falls in between these extremes - no driving bands, but still a very hard bullet that obturates little and is a bit hard on barrels.

(Re Bulldog)

You are absolutely right with the title, sorry I was writing from memory, hope no confusion caused.



The Woodleigh solids have incredibly heavy side wall reinforcing which can be the cause of high pressure with this particular bullet. Wright explains the concept of original dimensioning of Kynoch solids (pre 1970's) of old and how they tapered from the original diameter after a comparatively short distance, hence only a fraction of the bullet shank was true diameter.

I have not seen a Barnes banded solid in the flesh so to speak but from the pictures seen so far the bands do look overly large to maximise the reduction of pressure effects seen in some of the other brands.

It would be interesting to see lab results of testing the various banded solids back to back with the regular monolithic unbanded types using like for like loads so that pressures could be compared, until such time as this occurs all we can do is specultate.

As for pressure affecting double rifles barrels, in a recent conversation with David Little of Kynoch ammunition he told me of a spectacular failure they had whilst testing new brands and lots of powders for 500/465 N.E.

Whilst trying a new source of propellant powder from Europe and using the manufacturers suggested starting load for pressure testing, the pressure test gun recorded a maximum service pressure of 32 tons per square inch which casued a bulge in the 2.5" diameter proof barrel at the chamber, the recorded velocity was just over 200 fps above normal service limits for that particular round, yet the chamber pressure exceeded twice the accpeted norm for that calibre.

My own tests in developing loads for the .600 N.E with the same pressure gun have shown that with certain powders that for as little as an 80 fps increase in velocity, the peak pressure can rise by over 5 tons per square inch from within acceptable pressure limits to well over what was considered the safe working pressure for the round.

Whether or not the action will stand excess pressure is another matter, but for the avoidance of doubt; given the leverage exerted on the under bolts (Mechanical Advantage/leverage in this case exacerbated by the distance between moment of force acting down the centreline of the bore over the position of bolts beneath the barrel) as the action/ barrel tries to flex on firing, therefore the less chamber pressure developed, then a fortiori, the also less back thrust, (remember Newton's Second Laws), and the less excessive wear on the action, this is the exact reason why you will see many well used double rifles apparently "off-the face" a testament to the fact that they do not stand excess pressure as well as other types of action.

Attempting then to use a homogenous bullet without any form of pressure reducing annular rings and then hand loading to reach the original "Kynoch quoted velocity for say a .470 at 2130 fps but this time from your 22" barrel (when the original velocity was from a 28" proof barrel) will only serve to see a massive exponential rise in chamber pressure, of course you will probably get away with it for a while but with each subsequent firing the bolting mechanism is esposed to more wear and tear.

Don't believe me then look at the example from David Little with the .465 N.E above for a recorded velocity of just over 2350 fps chamber pressure peaked at 32 tons per square inch. With pressure like that you won't get away with it for long though

It is an axiomatic principle that double rifles simply do not stand anything like the pressures that bolt action rifles will stand. Any measure taken that will see reduced pressures when using solids has got to be worthy of consideration.

If Bridgners with annular grooves will permit lower pressure and still regulate then they may well be the way to go. The regulators at H&H as stated previously carry out regulation with soft nosed bullets then try out some solids for grouping, possibly limited use of traditional heavy steel jacketed solids will cause little or no lasting harm, but I guess the if you had a £50,000 plus holland double would you risk regular and frequent use. That said, it is possible that today many big calibre doubles get so little real use compared to the golden days of the 1920's -1930's that the limited number of traditional jacketed solids will do no harm over a contemporary lifetimes use.

In 1994 I saw first hand the effects of using monolithic solids to regulate a new built .577 N.E by a well know Birmingham maker still in business today. The rifle having been regulated with ammo supplied by the client from the U.S was taken back in to the workshop for final polishing and blacking when, on a final strike up of the barrels, a fine crack was observed running along the right barrel at its jointing with the rib, in short the tinning of the rib to the barrel had failed, something the barrel maker had never seen on a new build rifle, upon rectification, regulation was completed with Romey ammo without any further adverse effects.

Use Trophy Bonded Solids, they are neither monolithic or are they steel jacketed. Save your bore. They will be available to reloaders next month via Midway, Graf&Sons, etc. If you have DR in anything above 470 then use the woodleigh solids ONLY when you have to. That means only when you see the whites of their eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by dirklawyer:
Use Trophy Bonded Solids, they are neither monolithic or are they steel jacketed. .

Still harder on the barrel than a true driving band solid.

Dan

What make are the bullets pictured and
Is the grey appearance some form of low friction coating?

JT:

I don't want to presume to answer for Dan, but I believe the top row bullets are a North Fork Flat Nose Solid and a Bridger FN solid.

The bottom row are all GS Custom FN solids, I believe. GS Custom moly coats their solids.

www.northforkbullets.com www.gscustom.co.za


Regards,

RCG

quote:

Originally posted by RCG:
JT:

I don't want to presume to answer for Dan, but I believe the top row bullets are a North Fork Flat Nose Solid and a Bridger FN solid.

The bottom row are all GS Custom FN solids, I believe. GS Custom moly coats their solids.

www.northforkbullets.com www.gscustom.co.za


Regards,

RCG

Correct except the top left is a GS Custom too (run through the vibrator to get the dried blood off).

Here are some North Forks which happen to be cup nosed rather than flat nose:

Thanks RCG and Dan

Do GS ship direct to the U.S or do you have a US agent? I ask as I am wondering whether an approach to them directly will permit them to ship direct to me here in the U.K.

As you know, we cannot freely ship expanding bullets as they are a restricted item, you might as well try to order mail order an atom bomb!, but no restriction (as Yet!) exists on shipping via post , carrier etc solid bullets.
I would sure be interested in trying some of the GS solid .375's, Dan what do you reckon to them from your limited testing?

Thanks

JT

JT:

At one time, GS Custom had a distributor in the USA, but now they ship direct.

Contact Gina and Gerard at www.gscustom.co.za and they will be able to help you. Their website has a lot of information on it.

If you look at the "FAQ" section, they say that crimping is not necessary. I, on the other hand, would recommend that you consider a Lee Factory Crimp Die for the larger bores. When I first started loading the 450 grain Flat nosed solids in my .458WM I did not crimp. I then noticed that a few of the bullets moved in the case while in the magazine due to recoil. I now crimp all loads and have not noticed any movement.

Cheap insurance in my opinion.

Good luck.

RCG

Ordered some .500 NE, 570 grain FN from GS Custom. Understand that they will contact me for payment details and estimated delivery dates. With my double, I think better safe than sorry (with the Woodleighs) is the way I want to go.

RCG


Thanks for the heads up, I shall e-mail them tomorrow, I am interested in trying the .375 as a starter, may then move onto the .500's

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:


The Woodleigh solid has a lead core and compresses relatively easily.

Not so due to the rigid steel liner between the copper jacket and the lead core. That is why the British gunmakers do not recommend a steady diet of Woodleigh solids even for brand new doubles.

Guys, I get a little tired of people stateing things as fact when they are "supposing how it should be". This is especially true when it comes to double rifles. These forums have a lot of good and knowledgeable people, but we also have some that agree with something that someone else said/says or put forward un-truths without knowing if the statemnet is fact or fiction.

Would I use mono-metal solids in my 500 Searcy? yes, 'cause Butch said it's okay to do so. But he said the Woodleighs would be a better idea, regulation and all. But I must admit I DO like the idea behind the driving band concept

I asked the guys at the H&H booth at the SCI Reno this past (January) show about Woodleigh solids in their doubles and they told me they are NOT a problem what so ever!

My meter pegged when I started reading about the supposetion that Woodleighs are a problem. As a matter of fact the the solids (500, 570 gr.) ARE tapered slightly (like the older Kynoch) solids and are slightly under sized. Yes, really. Break out your mics and check it out if you doubt it.

The softs measure

.510 at the base and at the cannelure

The solids measure

.5095 at the base and .5092 at the cannelure

I discovered this one day and called Woodleigh about it and they verified that this is by design. The reason for this to attempt to insure proper regulation, pressure(s) and barrel stress' between soft and solid bullets.

I would think Woodleigh does this with all their "double caliber" bullets, but don't know that for sure.

Okay Guys, thanks for "listening" to my rant, I feel much better now

Maybe I am from Missouri. I pulled out the mic (an RCBS so it is hard to get to the fourth decimal point) and sure enough the Woodleigh solids mic out at slightly under .510 at the base, whereas the Woodleigh soft points mic out at slightly over .510 at the base. I checked several and the same was true on each. Not sure whether that makes them okay to shoot in a double, but they do appear to be slightly undersized.

Guys

The Woodleigh solids will and do shoot well in double rifles, no doubt whatsoever, indeed most rifles built today in large bores will in all probability be regulated with them. Ceertainly ones built here in the U.K

They are a fine bullet in every sense and one should have no fears about lack of performance.

What is undeniable however is that they are harder on the barrel than Kynoch solids of old, look at the section of the jacket thickness in the shank area, it is massive compared to the original jackets.

I have been present at Northwood in Middlesex (Holland's shooting ground) and watched Steve Cranston regulate a .470 and .577 N.E "Royal" rifles, they reguulate with soft nosed and then try betwen 4-6 solids once regulation with the soft is achieved.

Kynoch ammo made today is loaded so that the solids will regulate to the same point as softs, hence a reduction in the propellant charge is often employed for the solid rounds.

Once the regulators are happy with the performance with softs, they try the solids knowing that regulation should be the same, it certainly was when I was present.

I do not believe it possible to state with any certainty that a rifles should fire no more than ??? solids, to do so would be highly speculative, I do think that for the number of times a double will be called upon to fire solids in today's hunting climate, that you could use them with total safety.

On a personal note I would happily use Woodleigh solids, but in any DOUBLE rifle of my own would limit their use to target testing and for game as and when required, however of the truly homogenous solids, I would use only those with a true driving band design, that is a personal prosepctive, many I have no doubt will happily use mono solids without trepidation, thats fine.

The technology that introduced mono solids has moved on to bring us driving bands that reduce pressure, that has to be a good thing surely!

I recently had the same conversation with the folks at Holland regarding a 1927 vintage .465. I initially spoke to Patrick Murphy who referred me to Russell Wilkins (if I'm remembering his name right). The Woodleigh is the only solid that Holland's recommends and is the solid they use in their doubles, new or old. Sure, shoot them enough to get them grouping with the softs, and then whatever is needed for hunting. I can't imagine why anyone would want to do otherwise. I had the same conversation with David Little at Kynoch.

Yes, the steel jacket of the Woodleigh solid is thicker than the post-WWII Kynoch's were, but they still have a lead core which DOES permit them to compress readily, and slug to the bore. That's why Kynoch currently loads Woodleighs. As I explained in my previous post, I'm not speculating. I have to size down standard diameter bullets .003" for one of my doubles. The Woodleigh solid requires a bit more pressure on the press handle than the Woodleigh soft to swage down, but not much.

MJines, I've also had the experience of having damaged the barrels of a fine double with homogenous bullets. It's expensive. Once you've been bit, you'll be done with monos in doubles for good, driving bands or otherwise. My doubles are pre-war British, and the only solids I shoot in them are Woodleighs. I've never had a problem with them.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

400

Have you approachged Geoff MacDonald at Woodleigh about having bullets made to your eact diameter, at one time I believe he offered varying diameters for certain of the bullets to reflect the original dimensional variations.

I do agree with you on the homegeneous solids although I can see the benefits in true driving band solids and having just come off the GS bullets website www.gsgroup.co.za I was amazed at the test they visually illustrate by manually forcing a banded GS HV bullet down the bore of a 7mm mauser, a feat that could not be done with a regular jacketed bullet.

Yes you are correct- Russel Wilkins is Technical Director of Gunmaking at H&H and is very knoweldgeable on the subject matter of double rifles.

Another great authority was a predecessor of his, David Winks, who was at one time chief barrel maker at H&H, David ghas seen at first hand the ruinous effects of some of the very hard Monometal solids on Barrels of both vintage and even new Double rifles and I suspect would be the first to advise against such use

Jonathan:

Yes, I checked with Woodleigh, and they're weren't receptive at the time, but that that was quite a few years ago now. It's worth checking with them again.

As to the driving band designs, I'm not convinced and have no need to find out on my dime. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I met David Winks in London years ago, and we discussed that particular issue. He told me of a new Royal DR they had built for a client who wanted it regulated with mono solids. By the time the regulator was finished, there was rifling imprint on the outside of the barrels. They were starting to get a lot of doubles with overstressed rifling through their shop by then. Holland's was getting a lot less for new DR barrels in those days. Last year I heard that they were up to almost $30,000.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."
-----------------------------------------------

I started confused and now I am more confused than ever -- shoot the Woodleighs they are okay, shoot the Woodleighs just don't shoot a lot of them, do not shoot the Woodleighs, shoot the GS solids, do not shoot the GS solids, etc. Reminds me of the old line, opinions are sort of like *#!^%#s, everyone's got one.

Thanks for the feedback, plenty to think about.

quote:

Originally posted by 510wells:


I asked the guys at the H&H booth at the SCI Reno this past (January) show about Woodleigh solids in their doubles and they told me they are NOT a problem what so ever!

That is exactly the answer I would expect to receive from a salesman.

The H&H rifle regulator uses a minimal number of Woodleigh solids for a very good reason.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by 510wells:


I asked the guys at the H&H booth at the SCI Reno this past (January) show about Woodleigh solids in their doubles and they told me they are NOT a problem what so ever!

That is exactly the answer I would expect to receive from a salesman.

The H&H rifle regulator uses a minimal number of Woodleigh solids for a very good reason.

FYI, I had asked to talk to someone "technical" before I posed the question, but it might been a sales guy, one never knows

Of course there's a reason for using softs for most of the regulaton work. They're cheaper

But in reality how many big bore DR "stoppers" are used primarily with softs? not many I'd guess, at least not when hunting DG. But for "practice" of course.

Roi

Gentlemen, trying not to

Jonathan Tomlinson,
I appreciate your contribution very much at this forum.
Coming to use Solids of different shapes and materials in double rifles, the barrels steel quality hasn't been mention much here.

In W J Jeffery & Co 1904 - 1905 catalouge there are one full page about the steel's used in their rifles and guns.

Reffering directly from the Catalouge:

"The most important parts of the Gun are the Barrels.
In our best guns we have hithero largely used Whitworth Steel or best Laminated Steel (Damascus?). The latter is a welded barrel, composed partly of iron and partly of steel. It is very hard, and has a nice silvery colour when worn, and gives good shooting. during the last few months we have been using Nickel Gun Barrel Steel, and "Krupp's" Gun Barrel Steel, and for the coming season we have a large number of these Barrels in hand.In guns at £ 40 (sic!) and upwards we fit these barrels without extra charge. In Guns from £17 10s. to £25 the price will be 50/- extra, and in Guns from £5 to £15, £3 Extra."

Further down the same page:

During 1889 we persuaded one of the leading English firms to turn their attention to the production of a Steel that should at least equal, if not exceed, the average strenght of Krupp Steel. The result was the production of a Steel that is 30 percent stronger than the best English Steel hithero in use, and as far as our present experience has shown this new Steel is more elastic and less liable to flaws than Krupp's. The bursting strain of this Steel is from 48 to 50 tons per square inch, compared with 35 to 37 tons for the best Barrel Steel hithero in use."

Further down:
"HERAKLES" COMPOUND GUN BARREL STEEL.
This steel is made on the Siemens principle and is far better than Damascus, being much stronger, and less liable to flaws. It also gives better shooting than ordinary Belgian or British Damascus. We do not make any extra charge for "Herakles" Steel Barrels."

He also mentions the need of dolls heads for double rifles:
"We very much doubt if there is anything to beat the plain Doll's Head for holding the barrels to the breech, provided it is made of good steel, and of proper shape, and well fitted."

When a barrel brakes - is it made of inferior Steel? How shall one be able to identify what kind of steel the barrels are made of? I know that Krupp steel barrels very often has the name Krupp stamped on the barrels, but Whithworth, was there other Whitworth steel than the "Pressed Fluid Steel"? Is the Herakles steel made on Siemens principle's not good??

Hope that you can give an answer!

Husky

Husky

You pose some interesting questions, many of which I can only provide a speculative answer to.

A distinction may first need to be drawn between steel barrels and the damascus type.

Damascus barrels have been more or less out of production now for the best part of 100 years, only in a few instances have they been recreated in recent times, then only for a project to prove that they still can be made.

The process of making damascus barrels entailed a number of strips of steel being forge welded around a mandrel and hammered together to make a single homogenous barrel, the joint betwewn the individual strips giving rise to the petterning that runs around the barrels and giving that damascened appearance, hence the name.

These barrels had their roots very much in the era of blackpowder both in sporting shotguns of the era and also in some rifles.

The important thing to bear in mind is that black powder, even in large bores, generates much lower pressure than does nitro cellulose and jacketed bullets.

The introduction of modern nitro cartridges from 1898 onwards was in essence made possible by the previous introduction of solid steel in the barrel making process.

The origins of the barrel steel traditionally were based around centres of gunmaking production, hence names such as Krupp steel, reflecting the origins from the giant armaments factory in Essen Germany, Poldi Steel, Bohler Steel and those marked as fluid steel of Whitworth's (Sir Joseph Whitworth- engineer and gun designer), all based around major gunmaking towns.

Much, as still exists today,(where barrels tend to be made by a number of geographically located makers) the situation was the same in the early 1900's, established makers ordered barrels from their nearest manufacturer.

Initially much fuss was made about the new type of barrels to distinguish them from the earlier Damascus types left over from black powder days.

You may well see many Purdeys from the 1900's on which the markings Pressed or Fluid Whitworth steel appear, this marking was gradually phased out as the remainder of the gun trade also adopted such steel barrels.

Many Rigby rifles, especially mauser actioned of that era had barrels made in Germany reflecting the fact that such guns were imported into this country as barreled actions in the white and thereafter finished and stocked here, this included the original .416 Rigbys and .275 Rigbys.

As all makers adopted steel barrels for their rifles and shotguns, so the practice of marking them with special claims of strength etc diminished to a large degree.

I seriously doubt that any modern day maker would advise the use of nitro cartridges with full nitro loading in damascus barrel guns, arguments still exist as to whether ther were stronger or weaker than solid steel barrels, but what is certain is that the barrels were made from individual strips of steel hammer forged together, if during the process of forging the strips together any impurity were present in between the steel strips then potential weak spots would form, over time these weak spots, if subjected to high pressure, could and indeed did burst.

A further undeniable fact is that modern steel is of better quality than it was back in the early 1900's; alloying with molybdenum, chrome and carbon of varying degrees had added greatly to a modern barrels ability to withstand both barrel wear and high pressures.

I do not know what benefits steel made by the Siemens process has over other manufacturing methods, a metallurgist would be far better placed than I to provide a narrative here, I do recall that such steel was deemd to be particulary pure and of high quality but I believe that that this intent can be said of most barrel steel.

Perhaps someone with a matallurgical background could help here??

As for checking on barrel integrity for flaws, I suppose the only real way would be by way of x-rays or the like, I know of no particular hardness tests using rockwell, brinell or vickers methods that would produce any meaningful results for an aged set of barrels that could be translated into a firm answer as to the integrity of the barrels.

Remember also that when the catalogue from which you quote was written in 1904-05, the change from damascus to steel for barrel tubes was still taking place, the thrust of the claim was that the steel they were offering at that time was superior to Damascus barrels, an undeniable fact. A further 100 years has since intervened since that time and with it steel making has advanced vastly.

The reference to the dolls head as a method of further securing the barrels to the standing breach is in itself an axiomatic principle, each time the rifle ( double) is fired, the barrels try to flex open as the backthrust of the cartridge head pushes against the standing breach.

On a rifle without a third bolt on the breach face, the brunt of the thrust is taken by the leverage acting against the under bolts fitting into the bites in the barrel lump, therer has to be a degree of clearance in all moving parts on a double rifle for it to be able to be opened, this clearance permits slight movement of the barrels on firing, over time and repeated firing, stretching can occur which causes the barrels to move "off-the Face".

The various third -lock devices such as barrel extensions, dolls heads or greener cross bolts were designed to reduce to a minimum the effects of barrel movement on firing as were side clips which were supposed to hold the barrels tightly against the standing breach. Even with these devices, rifles did go off-face, quite simply the metal in the neck of the dolls head extension also stretched a small amount, for which the remedy was re-jointing.

In summary Damascus barrels are obsolete, a throw back to the long gone days of black powder- they look nice and are interesting to own, but today have no place on modern nitro using rifles.

I am however neatly ignoring here the effects that age may have on a set of steel barrels, either through age hardening or through excessive use, in the sanguine hope that some of the metallurgically qualified forumites can intervene and take the thory further, as it is an interesting point, especially for those with older or antigue rifles that they wish to use with modern ammo.

Sorry, this has become an overly long one, I didn't have time to write a short one (Apologies to George Bernad Shaw!)

Mr Tomlinson,
Thank you for the very interesting answer - and it was not to long! I enjoyed the reading very much.

I will try my contacts concerning metallurgy at Bofors AB - the nowdays British gunmaker (owned by BAE), they should now something about steel for rifle barrels!

Husky

PS I have sent you an email DS

When considering how hard or soft a bullet will be on a barrel, there are some important factors to take into account.

Monometal bullets are more difficult to compress lengthwise as well as radially than jacketed lead core bullets. This means that both are relatively high in the generation of barrel wall pressure. With the monometal bullet because most are made from bronze and it takes a lot of pressure to engrave the full length of the bearing surface. With the jacketed bullet because it compresses lengthwise under pressure of acceleration and climbing chamber pressure. This causes it to try and expand radially, thereby increasing barrel wall pressure. Take your pick which one you want to gamble with.

A solid copper bullet with drive bands will resist lengthwise compression under pressure and it rides on the faces of the lands with only the drive bands being engraved by the rifling. It exerts the lowest barrel wall pressure of all bullet types and results in the least heat and friction being generated within the bore. It is logical that, if heat and friction is reduced and barrel wall pressure is reduced, the barrel must be less stressed with each shot fired. It does not matter when the barrel was made and what it is made from. A true drive band bullet (grooved bullets excluded), made from copper, will always be easiest on any barrel.

That's why I ordered some from you for my .500 NE.

Can't wait to try them out.