Load DataMidSouth Shooters SupplyRepackboxLee Precision
Inline FabricationRotoMetals2WidenersTitan Reloading
Reloading Everything
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 167

Thread: My Rifle Action

  1. #81
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by oldred View Post
    I must agree and in fact will go so far as to say trying to get one lab tested is quite simply nonsense, even if you could find such a place that would do this and certify the action (if they don't certify it what would even be the point?) it would cost many times what the rifle would even be worth! Like you I just loaded some test loads that were waaaaaaay over my intended max of 28,000 PSI, again the same as your max, and fired them remotely from a safe distance. No other testing is necessary and I don't see how a lab would offer any more assurance than the badly flattened primers and somewhat loosened primer pockets that resulted from my two heaviest test rounds, there were zero indications of any additional looseness in the action, no increased clearances or any other changes I could find. Besides pressure testing with controlled intentional overloads is the usual way new firearms are tested and has been since the invention of gunpowder!


    When someone builds an action like this to the tolerances needed, and from quality high strength steel, they have a pretty good idea what it's capable of.

    We're not dealing with a Stevens Favorite here. This action would shrug off Marlin loads all day long, it's just best to understate it's strength due to the over abundance of stupid people in the shooting world.

  2. #82
    Boolit Master
    Chev. William's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Sun Valley, California
    Posts
    1,956
    RE: Lab Testing of A Completed Action.
    From My Reading; I Gather that In Europe, and many other none European countries, Laws RRequire Any Fireearm Offered for Sale to be Proof Tested by A CIP Certified Test House Before the sale can be completed.

    That Would Imply that CIP Proof testing is Available for Moderate Costs as EVERY Sale Requires Re-Proof of the firearm to be sold.

    Please correct me if I am Mistaken in my Understanding.

    Best Regards,
    Chev. William

  3. #83
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Chev. William View Post
    RE: Lab Testing of A Completed Action.
    From My Reading; I Gather that In Europe, and many other none European countries, Laws RRequire Any Fireearm Offered for Sale to be Proof Tested by A CIP Certified Test House Before the sale can be completed.

    That Would Imply that CIP Proof testing is Available for Moderate Costs as EVERY Sale Requires Re-Proof of the firearm to be sold.

    Please correct me if I am Mistaken in my Understanding.

    Best Regards,
    Chev. William
    About proof being mandatory for sales, other than to a registered firearms dealer, yes. But a firearm remains legally in proof unless it has been materially weakened, by lapping, boring or repolishing of the outside. The proof on my W&C Scott 10ga, with the "not for ball" stamp which dates it between 1878 and 1887, is as much in proof for black powder as ever it was.

    In old guns you only get a bore diameter, which goes, for example. 12, 12/1, 12/2, 11 etc. Later you get decimal dimensions and weights. My Pieper 24ga (yes, really!), has the Belgian year letter for 1926, metric diameters for bore and chokes, and a very precise weight for the barrel assembly

  4. #84
    Boolit Grand Master



    M-Tecs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Geezer in NH View Post
    Testing is needed IMHO by a LAB. Not being mean but what you stated is not computable. Sorry.
    What kind of testing? The standard proof load testing can be done by the builder. If you are talking about strength testing that does require destroying the action to determine the actual failure point. Generally multiple samples would be tested. Once the failure point is established you can determine what safety margin you want and reduce pressure to that percentage or modify the design. You can do that yourself. The design could be submitted to an engineering firm for stress analysis but its still just theory until the destructive testing is accomplished.

    Next step would be longevity testing. This would require very large amounts of ammo to determine if you have any issues from stress risers or any wear anomalies.

    Some labs that may do this type of testing. I have used HP White to test ammo.

    http://www.hpwhite.com/ballistic-testing/firearms/

    https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fsdlabcert
    Last edited by M-Tecs; 02-10-2017 at 05:13 PM.

  5. #85
    Boolit Bub
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    74
    M-Tecs, if you don't mind answering, how much did it cost to have the ammo tested? I've been meaning to have some tested as well, but it's on my roundtoit shelf.

  6. #86
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    East Tn
    Posts
    3,785
    While Proof testing of any firearm by a CIP test house very well may be required in Europe it's certainly not a requirement here in the U.S. and anyway it apparently only involves proofing with test loads such as we have already discussed that the builders can easily do themselves. Requiring a certified test house (good luck finding such a place here for any reasonable fee!) to pressure test all firearms may assure it is actually done and done correctly but it still does nothing that any of us can't do ourselves.

    I still maintain that "lab" testing a homebuilt rifle is total nonsense and NO ONE does it, and for good reason!! There is absolutely no reason to do anything of the sort, the only "lab" test that would mean anything would be proof testing and that is easily done by the builder. Now if you think any "lab" is going to analyze the structural integrity, X-ray or ultra-sound for purposes of certifying the steel to be defect free (NONE of the commercial manufacturers do that!) and certify the action to be of a mechanically safe design when used with standard ammunition and accept all the liabilities this would incur and do all this for less than thousands of dollars you are dreaming! And for what purpose? Proof testing is all that's necessary, is easily done by the builder, is all that any homebuilder does with a new firearm and is the way thousands of homebuilt firearms in modern times have been tested and untold millions since the early beginning!

    I suppose it might be prudent to have a competent gunsmith check out a homebuilt rifle if the builder feels that they are not qualified to determine the design safety themselves but expecting a "lab" to do more extensive testing that the builder can not do beyond proof firing and to do that for any reasonable sum is quite simply ridiculous. Now this thread could possibly devolve into the usual "splitting hairs" and "yeah buts" from some that have never even seen a real homebuilt, much less built one themselves, but those of us who do build them know full well just how unnecessary and what kind of nonsense the whole idea is!
    Last edited by oldred; 02-11-2017 at 08:22 AM.
    Statistics show that criminals commit fewer crimes after they have been shot

  7. #87
    Boolit Grand Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Northern Michigan
    Posts
    8,901
    Yep,

    A tire to lash the gun to, some padding to protect it, a long string and a decent tree to stand behind should be as high tech as needed. BTW, not a bad idea for some of the mil-surp guns people are buying.

    Anyway, what this gentleman accomplished is remarkable.

    Don Verna

  8. #88
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    East Tn
    Posts
    3,785
    Quote Originally Posted by dverna View Post
    Anyway, what this gentleman accomplished is remarkable.Don Verna
    And it don't take any lab analysis to see that!
    Statistics show that criminals commit fewer crimes after they have been shot

  9. #89
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,900
    To a large extent the need for mandatory firearms proof has been replaced by product liability legislation, and the plethora of paperwork which makes it difficult for someone to disappear and set up again fifty miles off with a different moustache. The major American gun companies seem to do pretty well on safety. I'd trust the OP in this thread, but the thought of someone starting a small business on the basis of the intrepidity we sometimes see on Youtube is pretty intimidating. Maybe some of the most frightening exploits there are faked, for we don't hear of many accidents resulting from small gunsmiths' or nearly-gunsmiths' products.

    But proof is a complex business, and the old tyre trick is far from conclusive. Most failures of underengineered or impaired firearms result from things most people will get away with, or one person for quite a while. A gun can actually be strengthened by overstressing, if the inner layers expand beyond their elastic limit, and the outer layers expand within them. It is rather like outer tubes being shrink-fitted onto inner ones in artillery. Or damage can be built up for later. It also takes someone knowledgeable about materials, pressures, stresses and dimensions to eyeball the gun as well, briefly for the products of a long-term reputable customer, longer for an amateur who may think all steel is alike.

  10. #90
    Boolit Grand Master



    M-Tecs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Ballistics in Scotland View Post
    A gun can actually be strengthened by overstressing, if the inner layers expand beyond their elastic limit, and the outer layers expand within them. It is rather like outer tubes being shrink-fitted onto inner ones in artillery.
    No and no. Once metal has exceeded its elastic limit permanent deformation has occurred and the metal is weakened.

    The reason some artillery barrels have an outer shell is the outer shell is more cost-effective or it is stronger. In the latter case the inner barrel material can be selected more for wear resistance and less for strength.

  11. #91
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    East Tn
    Posts
    3,785
    As the old saying goes, it ain't rocket science folks, and anyone with the mechanical aptitude and machinist ability to build a rifle can very easily see weak areas, now if they are intending to build commercially and are unscrupulously compromising the design integrity for profit margin reasons that would be an entirely different thing altogether. Proof testing with high pressure loads is indeed sufficient for testing purpose as is evidenced by the fact that is the only testing the vast majority of firearms ever built have received! Proof loads will expose weaknesses, if the darn thing blows up that would be instantly conclusive and stretching/distortion would be indicators of possible future problems so again the design has failed. But no detectable structural changes, such as increased looseness, an increase in headspace or any other measurable changes combined with just plain common sense and even basic understanding of the mechanics involved and all should be well, as it obviously has been for untold mega-numbers of firearms produced over the years both commercially and homebuilt. Again all the "yeah buts" and "splitting hairs" can not get around the fact that it just isn't done by anyone (lab testing beyond pressure proofing) except for maybe a new design being certified for commercial purposes (gotta keep the lawyers happy!). Some are probably going to argue this despite the facts but why after all these years and countless firearms that received nothing but pressure proofing is there suddenly a "need to be lab tested", as stated by the post that started this? The answer of course is simple, there is no reason now for the same reason there was not any reason before.
    Last edited by oldred; 02-11-2017 at 09:33 PM.
    Statistics show that criminals commit fewer crimes after they have been shot

  12. #92
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,900
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Tecs View Post
    No and no. Once metal has exceeded its elastic limit permanent deformation has occurred and the metal is weakened.

    The reason some artillery barrels have an outer shell is the outer shell is more cost-effective or it is stronger. In the latter case the inner barrel material can be selected more for wear resistance and less for strength.
    Yes and yes, there is a considerable margin between exceeding of the elastic strength and the stress required for rupture.

    I believe it was Sir Frederick Abel who established that the inner layers of a barrel are more heavily stressed than the outer ones. The extremes of the weakness was found quite some time earlier, in cast-iron guns. For the interior of large castings were a spongy mass into which a chisel could be sunk by hand. Small ones worked rather well, at least when drilling of a solid gun casting replaced casting around a core, as was done with bronze. But when the size was increased, only the bore area was stressed, and inside and outside could fail one at a time, just like wearing belt and suspenders if they don't both hold your trousers up with the same tension. A steel gun totally stress-free all the way through works a little bit the same way.

    Sir Gerald Burrard, still probably the best all-round authority on shotgun technology, and "Elements of Ordnance", the West Point textbook for 1938, both describe the principle known as autofrettage in artillery engineering. Guns could be cold-worked by extraordinarily high hydraulic pressure which produced enough permanent expansion in the inner layers, to make the outer layers grip them tightly when the gun was at rest. The grip of those outer layers stopped their expansion well short of failure.

    Built-up guns, again according to both authorities, achieve the same effect, though starting the other way around. "Elements of Ordnance" says "The jacket is expanded by heat until it fits over the tube. Then, as it is cooled, the jacket shrinks into place, the process putting the tube into a state of compression, and increasing the elastic strength of the gun as previously explained."

  13. #93
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,612
    Scotland
    Most of the old references you cite are way out of date because no one manufactures firearms with the same old cottage industry processes and materials any more.
    Steels are better. Machining processes are better and faster. Heat treat is better and is better understood.

    The proofing done by European nations is most a jobs program for a few workers. It accomplishes NOTHING but wasting money.
    The legal system already provide penalties for failures. It is called unlimited liability...

    If you want to see the modern way of analyzing a rifle action take a look at Varmit Als site

    http://www.varmintal.com/abolt.htm


    Analyzing the loads on a rifle action are no big deal with FEA programs (AKA finite element analysis).
    But any competent mechanical engineer can determine the load path and do the calculations with a calculator.
    After all you had people that went to the moon on slide rule calculations - nearly 50 years ago.
    Last edited by EDG; 02-13-2017 at 08:08 AM.
    EDG

  14. #94
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,900
    Quote Originally Posted by EDG View Post
    Scotland
    Most of the old references you cite are way out of date because no one manufactures firearms with the same old cottage industry processes and materials any more.
    Steels are better. Machining processes are better and faster. Heat treat is better and is better understood.

    The proofing done by European nations is most a jobs program for a few workers. It accomplishes NOTHING but wasting money.
    The legal system already provide penalties for failures. It is called unlimited liability....
    Afterwards, though. I suppose the proofing done within the main American companies must be a waste of money too, then.

  15. #95
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    East Tn
    Posts
    3,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Ballistics in Scotland View Post
    Afterwards, though. I suppose the proofing done within the main American companies must be a waste of money too, then.

    And now the "yeah buts" etc start!

    Proof testing with pressure loads by American companies has nothing to do with the real subject of this thread and besides such pressure testing of the action that is the subject of this thread WAS done as it is by any other builder that has any common sense. This whole thing started when someone who obviously doesn't have a clue about homebuilt rifles stated the OP NEEDED to have his action lab tested insinuating that his proof/pressure testing was not sufficient which is absolute total nonsense on both counts, that action was tested the same way the vast majority of firearms are tested and of all the homebuilt actions out there I think it safe to say that it's extremely likely that not a single one has been subjected to any nonsensical "lab" testing, it just isn't done and for good reason. I am not disputing your statement on metal fatigue just that in the case of a rifle action such as shown here it is simply not relevant in the sense that those issues will become negated by the fact the action has more than sufficient mass, and of a VERY strong alloy, to withstand high pressure loadings. These attributes are obvious to anyone with even a very basic understanding of the mechanics involved, now someone might argue the equivalent of the proverbial old "black sheep is white" argument by claiming most people don't have the engineering background to make such judgements but the argument will be just as useless as the black vs white sheep because as I said before it ain't rocket science and just common sense tells us the thing is overbuilt if anything!

    And again all the silly arguments and pointing out of irrelevant engineering data will not get around the fact that thousands of homebuilt firearms are in use and NO ONE has done any silly "lab" testing before and there is no reason to start now! The absurd statement that the action being discussed here "NEEDS to be lab tested" and the insinuation that the common, indeed the standard, method of pressure proof testing was not adequate is what the subject is about here, it is not about metallurgical theory ranging from stress testing samples to double sleeve artillery barrels. All the engineering analysis and theory is rather meaningless until proven by real world testing and all the engineering "what ifs" will be encompassed by that all important pressure test which WAS done, the same test that is much more conclusive than data based on theory and beyond that any "lab testing" would be prohibitively involved and expensive -and totally unnecessary!
    Statistics show that criminals commit fewer crimes after they have been shot

  16. #96
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    central BC Canada
    Posts
    126
    I have worked with a few engineers.......book smart doesn't necessarily translate into git'r'done smart.......Nuff said.

    Don't build one if you are worried about the safety being suspect. I am not suggesting that anyone else should build one at all. I was merely showing my personal project for those who might take an interest in such things.

    I forgot that most topics typically degenerate into a "urinating for distance" competition for some strange reason. If you would like to discuss the merits of proof testing VS laboratory testing, maybe start a new thread??

    Respectfully,
    Darcy
    nothing is foolproof for a sufficiently motivated fool

    Horsepower will never be a substitute for shot placement

  17. #97
    Moderator / Master Tool & Die Maker


    Red River Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
    Posts
    2,130
    Quote Originally Posted by 45stomp View Post
    I have worked with a few engineers.......book smart doesn't necessarily translate into git'r'done smart.......Nuff said.

    Don't build one if you are worried about the safety being suspect. I am not suggesting that anyone else should build one at all. I was merely showing my personal project for those who might take an interest in such things.

    I forgot that most topics typically degenerate into a "urinating for distance" competition for some strange reason. If you would like to discuss the merits of proof testing VS laboratory testing, maybe start a new thread??

    Respectfully,
    Darcy
    Well said................some people don't when to keep quite!

    BTW 45Stomp, nice job on your project!

    RRR
    "I Make the part.............................that makes the parts"

    Looking for Bullet Mould Handles, Heavy Duty Replacement Sprue Plates, Adjustable Paper Patch Bullet Moulds? Check here:http://www.kal.castpics.net/

    My Feedback!

    http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...Red-River-Rick

  18. #98
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,900
    Quote Originally Posted by oldred View Post
    This whole thing started when someone who obviously doesn't have a clue about homebuilt rifles stated the OP NEEDED to have his action lab tested insinuating that his proof/pressure testing was not sufficient which is absolute total nonsense on both counts, that action was tested the same way the vast majority of firearms are tested and of all the homebuilt actions out there I think it safe to say that it's extremely likely that not a single one has been subjected to any nonsensical "lab" testing, it just isn't done and for good reason.
    Actually I agree that a knowledgeable home-builder of a rifle receiver (which the OP with his fine achievement obviously is), doesn't need laboratory testing of his work. I said that with the round breechblock the rear slot for the lockwork should be stoutly bridged and shouldn't be unduly wide. Most such actions, cut from modern engineering steels but equalling or better what used to be done by forging in mild steel, are amply overengineered. I'm not sure there are laboratories available, who know about the rather peculiar stresses of firearms as well as about metal.

    I don't, however, agree that properly conducted proof testing is useless, for production runs and imports which may last many years, and through changes of factory practices. There are also reasons why standing a massive overload one may be no substitute.

  19. #99
    Boolit Grand Master



    M-Tecs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,452
    The OP politily requested that the folks that want to continue this BS start their own thread. What's so difficult about that?????
    Last edited by M-Tecs; 02-13-2017 at 06:04 PM.

  20. #100
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    East Tn
    Posts
    3,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Ballistics in Scotland View Post
    I don't, however, agree that properly conducted proof testing is useless, for production runs and imports which may last many years, and through changes of factory practices. There are also reasons why standing a massive overload one may be no substitute.

    Someone said proof testing is useless??????
    Statistics show that criminals commit fewer crimes after they have been shot

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check