Antique Firearm collecting

[barryeye]

[QUOTE=Fronteria;3742270]Hi Jim
Earlier this year I got a Martini Henry carbine which looked in very good condition with a very good bore so I thought I would put it on my ticket and use it.
A gunsmith friend checked it over and found it visually sound in in both bore and action so it was sent to the proof house where it passed the view but failed proof when the barrel was blown completely off and in half two inches beyond the chamber the forend wouldn't have held the pressure so I would been injured was it worth the £30-00 cost to proof test it?
How much value do you put on your hand or fingers say for arguments sake £10-00 a finger or £30-00 a hand?

I don't doubt you but I have to ask how your Martini could have passed the proof test when made but failed it later? I assume firearms can go out of proof with ware but with age?
Are you sure it was not one of the Khyber pass specials that are now all to common? Some of them look very very much like the real thing.
Barry

[Fronteria]

[QUOTE=barryeye;3744150]

Hi Jim
Earlier this year I got a Martini Henry carbine which looked in very good condition with a very good bore so I thought I would put it on my ticket and use it.
A gunsmith friend checked it over and found it visually sound in in both bore and action so it was sent to the proof house where it passed the view but failed proof when the barrel was blown completely off and in half two inches beyond the chamber the forend wouldn't have held the pressure so I would been injured was it worth the £30-00 cost to proof test it?
How much value do you put on your hand or fingers say for arguments sake £10-00 a finger or £30-00 a hand?

I don't doubt you but I have to ask how your Martini could have passed the proof test when made but failed it later? I assume firearms can go out of proof with ware but with age?
Are you sure it was not one of the Khyber pass specials that are now all to common? Some of them look very very much like the real thing.
Barry

Hi. Barry
The gun was a genuine Enfield manufactured martini henry gun.
A Kyber pass special wouldn't have got pass the proof house viewing stage of the proof process.
The problem is you never know what has happened to the gun during it's last hundred odd years of life.
People do strange things to guns like a .22 sporter that wouldn't group and keyholed every shot, the guy had tried to remove the barrel to clean it and had twisted the rifling and straightened it out in one spot he then re twisted it back as the front sight was off to one side.
The problem was only found when a very tight patch was pushed down the barrel.
Some so called home gunsmiths are a menace and you don't have a record of what has happened to any gun you purchase particularly antiques.
Antique guns get bodged and abused up just like cars and you cannot always spot a problem before it's too late.
jeff

[dahtunnel]

apart from way too many deactivated weapons I have currently three antique long arms
A schmidt rubin 1889
A mauser 1871/84
and a martini henry chopped back to a sporterised rifle (a bit dubious that one)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/1439013...7609292464063/

David

[barryeye]

[QUOTE=Fronteria;3744375]

Hi. Barry
The gun was a genuine Enfield manufactured martini henry gun.
A Kyber pass special wouldn't have got pass the proof house viewing stage of the proof process.
The problem is you never know what has happened to the gun during it's last hundred odd years of life.
People do strange things to guns like a .22 sporter that wouldn't group and keyholed every shot, the guy had tried to remove the barrel to clean it and had twisted the rifling and straightened it out in one spot he then re twisted it back as the front sight was off to one side.
The problem was only found when a very tight patch was pushed down the barrel.
Some so called home gunsmiths are a menace and you don't have a record of what has happened to any gun you purchase particularly antiques.
Antique guns get bodged and abused up just like cars and you cannot always spot a problem before it's too late.
jeff

Hi Jeff.
I take your point but still find it difficult to understand how a rifle that was once in proof can without visable signs of ware or abuse go out of proof. No doubt that your one did but the question is how. To put it another way. If I wanted one of my Martinis to fail a proof test, how could I make this happen? And not make what I had done obvious to a gunsmiths inspection? Did the proof house give any indication as to why it failed? Was the metal flawed?
Just curious.
Barry

[loach369]

[QUOTE=barryeye;3744150]

Hi Jim
Earlier this year I got a Martini Henry carbine which looked in very good condition with a very good bore so I thought I would put it on my ticket and use it.
A gunsmith friend checked it over and found it visually sound in in both bore and action so it was sent to the proof house where it passed the view but failed proof when the barrel was blown completely off and in half two inches beyond the chamber the forend wouldn't have held the pressure so I would been injured was it worth the £30-00 cost to proof test it?
How much value do you put on your hand or fingers say for arguments sake £10-00 a finger or £30-00 a hand?

I don't doubt you but I have to ask how your Martini could have passed the proof test when made but failed it later? I assume firearms can go out of proof with ware but with age?
Are you sure it was not one of the Khyber pass specials that are now all to common? Some of them look very very much like the real thing.
Barry

FWIW: I have seen Sold out of Service / DP Martini rifles and carbines that have been 'deactivated' with a thin saw cut just forward of the knox form. I have also seen examples like this subsequently TIG/MIG welded,or even filled with Isopon or lead, aged and the chamber cleaned up with a reamer. Not saying that is what happened with your one but I cant see a rewelded or filled barrel passing proof.

[barryeye]

[QUOTE=loach369;3745730]

FWIW: I have seen Sold out of Service / DP Martini rifles and carbines that have been 'deactivated' with a thin saw cut just forward of the knox form. I have also seen examples like this subsequently TIG/MIG welded,or even filled with Isopon or lead, aged and the chamber cleaned up with a reamer. Not saying that is what happened with your one but I cant see a rewelded or filled barrel passing proof.

Ah. Now that could be the answer. I too have seen similar rifles including Martinis. However I was talking to a fellow collector today and he was of the opinion that steel goes "off" with age and that 150 year old rifle barrel will not be as strong as when it was made no matter if it has been well cared for and never fired. I'm still not sure about this but confess that it is out of my personal exterience to answer.
I own a number of Martinis and up until now have had no doubts about any of them that have been checked by a gunsmith or have come from a prevous collector that has shot them. I now have doubts.
Barry

[MikB]

[QUOTE=barryeye;3745827]

However I was talking to a fellow collector today and he was of the opinion that steel goes "off" with age and that 150 year old rifle barrel will not be as strong as when it was made no matter if it has been well cared for and never fired.
Barry

I have this impression too, and I suspect several decades might be enough for some materials.

Back in the '80s I had a 1915 Luger that I shot extensively and I knew a few others with them. Mine and others broke in interesting ways - toggle pins sheared one side, flakes chipping out of extractors, and the common favourite was the tiny lug that retains the extractor breaking. Occasionally these could be blamed on hot ammo like 2z, but most shooters used mild to medium loads. Repairs were often possible, though sometimes challenging...

I formed the impression that steel could go 'crystalline' over time, as it was the older Lugers (which were often the best-made) that seemed most affected, and break surfaces usually had a lustrous, 'frosted' appearance.

Regards,
MikB

[Jim McArthur]

[QUOTE=MikB;3748460]

I have this impression too, and I suspect several decades might be enough for some materials.

Back in the '80s I had a 1915 Luger that I shot extensively and I knew a few others with them. Mine and others broke in interesting ways - toggle pins sheared one side, flakes chipping out of extractors, and the common favourite was the tiny lug that retains the extractor breaking. Occasionally these could be blamed on hot ammo like 2z, but most shooters used mild to medium loads. Repairs were often possible, though sometimes challenging...

I formed the impression that steel could go 'crystalline' over time, as it was the older Lugers (which were often the best-made) that seemed most affected, and break surfaces usually had a lustrous, 'frosted' appearance.

Regards,
MikB

Most interesting, Mik. And another good reason to be wary about shooting those older pieces.

Jim

[loach369]

2Z ammunition in Lugers was never a good idea! I recall a mint Artillery version getting a split barrel after 20 or so rounds of 2Z rapid fire from the snail drum mag

[edbear2]

[QUOTE=barryeye;3745827]

Ah. Now that could be the answer. I too have seen similar rifles including Martinis. However I was talking to a fellow collector today and he was of the opinion that steel goes "off" with age and that 150 year old rifle barrel will not be as strong as when it was made no matter if it has been well cared for and never fired. I'm still not sure about this but confess that it is out of my personal exterience to answer.
I own a number of Martinis and up until now have had no doubts about any of them that have been checked by a gunsmith or have come from a prevous collector that has shot them. I now have doubts.
Barry

Hi Barry........This theory of your friends ......There is no scientific basis for it......Known and tested alloy steel compositions which have a "proof" or "yield" load done on test pieces as specimens, and where this data has been recorded, and the said pieces have been retested, have all shown no change in their original properties even after many years.......The problems are that; The methods used in the days when a lot of these old guns were produced were not as accurate as since the early 1900's (and actually in the 1950's, the Linz-Donawitz process of oxygen control).This is the main problem....A tube may pass the proof load, but there were no x-rays or ndt testing in those days!...on many old guns also there is no way, apart from obvious bulging or visible indications, of overloading, or excessive stress cycles which are leading to failure, The other comment of a close grained, grey appearance on a break only gives an indication of a fairly hard, and possibly brittle composition....It may be that the piece was not tempered properly, and so was susceptible to breakage, or it may have been a correctly designed part, taking a high load, that just failed due to excessive strain...(it would be interesting to break a similar part that was of recent manufacture to compare the grain structure)..a bit like a cast iron part....will take huge compression, and steady loading, but wack it somewhere where it is thin with a hammer.......see what I mean?

The older stuff I have shot, and seen used, is normally loaded light in deference not so much as to it's age, but to it's unknown state.....at the end of the day, you are dealing with high pressures on parts that you do not know the history of, do not know if they were made from the exact design and composition of metal intended etc....The craftsmen and barrel makers had great skills in those days, but the results varied a huge amount compared to what we have learnt in the last century.

Just to give a tiny idea of the science of basic carbon steels;

http://steel.keytometals.com/Articles/Art62.htm

Note the huge changes in properties given by the addition of just 0.1 -3 % of different alloying elements, and therefore the result of getting it very, very, slightly wrong!.....For sure, you could have done basic hardness, ductility, toughness tests back in the days when some of the older guns were made....but in no way could you be as 100% confident in the final product as in recent times.

ie.......the difference between a horse shoe, and a differential gear is about 0.6% carbon content!..scary!

[robinghewitt]

The iron depends on how far back you go and the vext question, when did they start puddling?

Dud Dudley was producing many grades of cast iron some of which lent themselves to 'fining'. But did he puddle?

You can refine iron by literally bashing the cr@p out of it. Presumably how they made currency bars, cast iron being no good for sword or plough share.

Puddling produces almost pure iron with a slag inclusion, working the puddled iron so the slag becomes long and thin and not localised makes wrought iron which is perfect for the smithy.

The Enfields went on one stage being made from Marshall's iron, almost certainly crucible steel. Marshalls factory in B'ham has been excavated. Crucible steel involves taking puddled iron rods, case hardening them to add carbon then remelting to even the carbon content through the mix. Pre-Bessemer the remelting was exceedingly tricky because it is only the impurities that get the melting point down. Crucible steel made excellent razors, no imperfections to interrupt a fine edge.

Then came cartridge guns and I completely lose interest, quite understand why you might insist on proofing and never trust that new fangled stuff.

Personally I like damascus iron, only problem with damascus is that it doesn't take to rifling very well. That's why my deer rifle has a damascus outer over a tape wound core