Steel quality in the late 1800s ????

[dingus]

Just wondering if there was any diffrence in Cylinder steel Quality in the late 1800s cause i just micd my MKII cylinder walls and it was made around 1897
My Webley metro has thicker or the same wall thickness as the web MKII
And it the Metro and my RIC were made 1879 or 1880s also my web No 4 pryse was made 1879 and its as thick or thicker than my Web MKII.
Just wondering why some say shoot fiocchi in a MKII but not a solid frame RIC or Metro which being solid frame are really a stronger revolver.
Anyone care to inject here go for it.

 

[t-star]

i think the steel itself is of a different formulation- that's why they can get away with a thinner wall and still keep the same or higher pressure- it all depends what they're proofed to

 

[mooncoon]

The 1880's through early 1900's were a time of considerable change in steel alloys and composition control. The AISI system of steel classification did not come out until roughly 1910.
The significants is that the closer you go backwards towards1880, the less you can assume that two batches of steel will have the same composition and the more you should assume that the strength of barrels and cylinders approaches that of wrought iron or mild steel ie the lower end of the scale.
I am not sure whether one should refer to tensile strengths or yield strengths of steels but there is at least a 2 x difference between the weakest of steels and modern steels in tensile strength and at least 3x difference in yield strength.
Bottom line is that even though a specific manufacurer continued to use the same thickness cylinder wall in their revolvers in 1920 as they did in 1880, there is a very good chance that the earlier one is considerably weaker.

cheers mooncoon

 

[Claven2]

What mooncoon said. Also, heat treatment and hardening processes might have differed in addition to composition.

The cross sectional density really has NOTHING (or at least very little) to do with it.

 

[dingus]

OK but is there any diffrence from 1879 to say 1885 ???

I just got a Webley No 4 Pryse made 1879 or 1880 and its got thicker Cylinder walls than a MKI or MKII webley

The webley No 4 is .70 thick.

A web MKI is like .65.

The NO 4 pryse is 476 caliber tho, so maby thats why its thicker than the 455 Web MKI cylinder.

Im gona shoot 45 colts with the rims thinned on the forward side packed full of pyrodex. So thats a safe load.
But i got like 200 Rds of the big Domion 455 factory ammo id like to shoot.
I have fired it outa a MKI and it kicks real good but didnt hurt the MKI one bit.
Man this Webley pryse is a nice gun, I just got it Today from North Carolina.

 

[mooncoon]

why take a chance? you have a gun that will allow you to fire off the hot .455 loads so why not use it then reload with pyrodex or black or moderate smokeless loads. I am not convinced it is all that difficult to burst a Webley; I certainly had a caution on the subject from a knowledgeable fellow in the States a while back.

cheers mooncoon

 

[dingus]

Yes im gona stick with pyrodex as it shoots more accurate than unique.
I was just trying to figger out about the steel quality back in 1880s.

And surprised how these old cylinders differ in thickness. A 1878 DA Frontier Colt has even thiner cylinder walls than a web MKII but theres no notch cut in the outside of them 1878 cylinders.