1861 Navy: split barrel. Something is very wrong!

[Onty]

Just stumbled upon video about 1861 Navy, split barrel .

Apparently, guy forgot to put the powder, or powder didn't ignite, bullet got logged in the barrel, and when second chamber with powder was fired, bullet hit first one and barrel cracked almost full length

I know about two revolvers with same problem, but barrels didn't split, they were just ringed. One of them was Webley Mk VI, WS Target, with 7.5" barrel https://media.joesalter.com/ca/large/C1642/C1642-02.jpg , quite rare. I had a chance to purchase it, and was shocked and sadden when was told about barrel condition. Anyhow, Webley is not as very sturdy revolver as new solid frame ones, and has relatively thin barrel wall, and yet, it didn't snap the latch, nor split barrel.

Regarding 1861 Navy, I don't think that that this revolver is any stronger than Webley, and barrel is certainly thicker about twice, yet it cracked like a firewood. Something is very wrong here! It doesn't look that pressure was too high. Wedge is not shown, but central pin looks is still in place, and it didn't crack in the weakest point, where is the slot for wedge.

So, seems to me that the culprit here is weak and brittle steel of the barrel. Any other opinion?

 

[arcticap]

So, seems to me that the culprit here is weak and brittle steel of the barrel. Any other opinion?

Absolutely not the fault of the steel.
Any barrel, no matter how strong, could split if there's a bore obstruction.
The shooter was at fault for not stopping to check the bore when he heard the different sound of the squib load.
Even capandball said that no one was hurt thanks to the strength of the barrel material and gun design.

I guess that the steel could always be higher quality to withstand an even higher powder charge without as much damage.
But we don't know enough about the quality of the steel to make that determination.
Since only the barrel was damaged, the steel proved to at least be adequate.

Imagine how much worse the damage could have been if it were an were an original antique Colt frame and barrel.

 

[mcb]

The barrel appears to have failed gracefully as modern gun barrels are designed to do in an over pressure situations. Modern gun barrels are usually made from medium carbon steels (and similar stainless steels) and hardened to moderate hardness (typically low 30's to mid 40's HRC for most gun barrels) and this is done on purpose. The lower hardness is not as strong (lower yield/ultimate strengths) but they are tougher in the sense of being more tolerant to minor flaws in the steel. And leaving the steel somewhat softer and more ductile also results in the "graceful" over-pressure failures were the steel splits and peals as it fails as show in the OP's video

They could have made the barrel stronger by increase its hardness or even having used a higher carbon content steel for even higher hardness but once you reach a hardness of ~50 HRC or higher the steel fails less "gracefully" in an over-pressure situation. These harder steels though stronger still would likely not have been strong enough to contained that pressure spike between the bullets and when that hard steel failed it would not have simply split the barrel it would have shattered the barrel creating multiple high velocity fragments.

 

[1KPerDay]

Hard to armchair quarterback/metallurgist over the net. You never know how steel will behave when there’s a bore obstruction. I’ve seen credible reports and pics of banana peeled barrels from ice/mud in the bore, laser boresighters, and I personally witnessed a Mossberg barrel blow up and banana peel from a squib followed by a slug.

Yet some get away with obstructions and some fail to blow up. Mythbusters did a full story on it and tried everything including welding a steel plug in the muzzle and couldn’t get a firearm to banana peel.

There are simply too many variables to make any meaningful judgements about steel quality or otherwise. IMO an obstructed bore that doesn’t turn into a grenade and shatter into shrapnel is good steel for the purpose.

 

[Onty]

686 barrel ringed using 38 Special round, no barrel splitting. A number of custom gunsmiths stated that Smith & Wesson and Ruger use top quality steel:



Post http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/252416-s-w-686-2-5-ringed-barrel.html

More examples https://www.google.com/search?q=rin...CAsQAw&biw=1920&bih=1058#imgrc=BxZJljGw2KqmmM

Max pressure for 38 Special round is 17500 PSI. Could that pressure level be reached in 36 Navy revolver using black powder? Did somebody use smokeless powder in that 36 Navy?

To illustrate how dramatic could be difference between steels used for barrels, here is the test done in Sweden. In 308 rifles they pushed from the muzzle a bullet about 10 cm (4"), and fired them. Results are spectacular! And in few cases frightening:

 

[mcb]

686 barrel ringed using 38 Special round, no barrel splitting. A number of custom gunsmiths stated that Smith & Wesson and Ruger use top quality steel:

View attachment 943135 View attachment 943136

Post http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/252416-s-w-686-2-5-ringed-barrel.html

More examples https://www.google.com/search?q=rin...CAsQAw&biw=1920&bih=1058#imgrc=BxZJljGw2KqmmM

Max pressure for 38 Special round is 17500 PSI. Could that pressure level be reached in 36 Navy revolver using black powder? Did somebody use smokeless powder in that 36 Navy?

To illustrate how dramatic could be difference between steels used for barrels, here is the test done in Sweden. In 308 rifles they pushed from the muzzle a bullet about 10 cm (4"), and fired them. Results are spectacular! And in few cases frightening:

What ruptured the barrel in the OP's video was not the pressure from propellent gas but the air trapped between the two bullets driven to very high pressures as it was squeezed to a near zero volume. With the first bullet lodge in the barrel near the muzzle, the second bullet was fired in behind it and the air trapped between the two bullets was compressed very rapidly. Due to the velocity of the second bullet and stationary condition of the first the pressure between the two rose super fast, faster than the first bullet could be moved out of the way resulting in the pressure between the two bullet bullets rising well above the pressure used to initially push the second bullet thus rupturing the barrel.

 

[Onty]

What ruptured the barrel in the OP's video was not the pressure from propellent gas but the air trapped between the two bullets driven to very high pressures as it was squeezed to a near zero volume. With the first bullet lodge in the barrel near the muzzle, the second bullet was fired in behind it and the air trapped between the two bullets was compressed very rapidly. Due to the velocity of the second bullet and stationary condition of the first the pressure between the two rose super fast, faster than the first bullet could be moved out of the way resulting in the pressure between the two bullet bullet rise well above the pressure used to initial push the second bullet and rupturing the barrel.

Exactly the same thing happened in that 686, and barrel didn't split! Why? The only reason I could think of is high quality of the steel on S&W revolvers.

Regarding that video about rifles test. I would expect that barrel will burst where bullets hit each other. On two rifles happened behind fired bullet. Culprit? Must be some sort of stress, or low steel quality, or both.

So, IMHO, quality of the barrel on that Navy revolver cannot compare with S&W.

 

[mcb]

Exactly the same thing happened in that 686, and barrel didn't split! Why? The only reason I could think of is high quality of the steel on S&W revolvers.

Regarding that video about rifles test. I would expect that barrel will burst where bullets hit each other. On two rifles happened between behind fired bullet. Culprit? Must be some sort of stress, or low steel quality, or both.

It might have been better material quality or simply that the 686 barrel is also significantly thicker than the 1861. Quantity has a quality of its own. Also notice the split on the 1861 intersect the notch cut in the top of the barrel for soldering the front sight into the barrel. Normally this small slot that created a stress concentration would not be an issue (pressure is normal pretty low that far down the barrel) but in this case that notch was close enough to the high pressure event that it may have have been the initiator of the split that propagated through the barrel.

As for the rifle we have no idea how or were the barrel was plugged? Hard to say anything definitive about the failures without more data.

 

[Ephraim Kibbey]

Notice that the split aligns with both the sight and the loading lever catch. The barrel there where the bubble occurred is a bit thinner because of the dovetails cut into it.

 

[Onty]

Here is something about that rifle burst test and how it was conducted https://translate.google.com/transl...ex.php?topic=25.2700;wap2&prev=search&pto=aue .

 

[Onty]

Looks like (see video 2:28) that obstruction was right at the muzzle, and those cuts are quite close. In that respect, barrel is definitely weaker there. However, look at those rifles that blowup; pressure in them must be tremendous, but barrels split just partially.

As for revolver, pressure must be just small fraction of the pressure in rifles, yet barrel split almost full length.

 

[arcticap]

Because the C&B revolvers are reproductions, they have some design limitations that affect the barrel dimensions.
But it would be interesting to test if the C&B barrels would still burst if better steel were used.
It would also be interesting to test if the same thing or worse happens while using a C&B conversion cylinder.

We don't know about any injuries happening to people by C&B barrels that burst.
If anyone tried to sue over a barrel obstruction, the shooter may be considered to be at fault and negligent.
And if cowboy competition leads to injuries from burst barrels, then perhaps gunsmiths would make replacement barrels for their competition guns.
But in the end, the shooter is responsible for their own safety by following safe shooting practices.

After all, how much stronger than antiques do the reproductions need to be, and people are still firing those.
C&B safety does not really seem to be an issue so there's really no reason to expect any changes to C&B barrel steel.

 

[Brutuskend]

Maybe the guys wife mixed a little smokeless powder in with his bp right after that new insurance policy she took out on him....
Maybe I should have actually READ the post before I added my - 2 cents worth.

 

[grter]

I don't know why a lot of people are comparing these mild steel black powder only reproductions with firearms made of arsenal grade steel designed to handle smokeless loads and much higher pressures. There is no comparison period. They will fail at lower pressures than modern firearms. That putting aside design characteristics.

People do not want to pay the extra money for cap and ball revolvers made of arsenal grade steel in a market where muzzle loaders make up a very small amount of sales and because of this manufacturers won't tool up for it.

The Ruger Old Army is an exception and when it was being made it did not sell nearly as well as the lower priced european muzzleloaders made of soft mild steel. People would whine, moan, cry, and poo poo (mostly people who didn't even buy or own one) about the high price of this super high quality American made muzzleloading revolver. They would scream at the top of their lungs about how foolish someone would have to be to purchase one. Well it's no surprise that Ruger stopped making them. They were not big profit makers for Ruger and Bill Ruger really had them made as a labor of love. The tradition continues to this day as people still poo about the price of one on the used market which is pretty low let alone the fairly recent sprint run of Old Army Revolvers made by Ruger at a little less than same type of cost ($350 in the year 1975 is worth $1975 today.)

They chose the cheaper ones back then even when at that time a lot them had the crappiest fit finish and steels ever. A lot of them were not even fit to be fired when brand new out of the box.

That is why they don't make them with better steel.

That being said an obstruction has the potential to burst any barrel regardless of the the type of steel used as far as I understand. I think a good question is would this be less likely with a black powder load. I honestly don't know. My totally un-expert take (uneducated guess) on it is maybe but I surely would not count on it.