Lonewolf -

Looking closer at it, I can see a check mark with a symbol off that which I can hardly make out. The bluing is all worn off the barrel now from age and all the cleaning it has had. It could be a ♥ or a â™* symbol but I would not swear to it. The check mark is under that ♥ or â™*and runs to the bottom of it. Like I said this is my oldest barrel. The only reason I refuse to part with it is ... this old devil will really shoot. It might be ugly and needs to be reblued, but I've grown used to it. I load 90 grains of Pyrodex RS and a patched roundball in it. and anything within 100 yards is mine. ☺☺☺

Well I checked my flinter and it has the "W" or m however it was ment to be displayed. It is a great shooter for sure.

Mine must be a newbie it has a L****K for a serial #( * = #'s) and no stamps on the bottom of the barrel. I presume the L is for Left hand?? 50 cal percussion left handed

To all,
Some of you saw my post about the used custom kit rifle I purchased w/the Douglas barrel. I did some research and called the factory. I tried to find out the years they made BP barrels. I spoke w/an older employee and he gave me some rough dates of 1962-1987. On the bottom of my barrel it is stampedclearly, GR Douglas 50 cal. No twist is indicated but he did say it was a slow twist.My rifle has a Longs lock of Denver and I have zero info on this one other than it is mid to early 80's @ the youngest. I remembered an interview I read that Wakeman did w/Doc White. The article is pretty clear but open to interpertation when in reference to sabot loads. Here is the article!

http://www.chuckhawks.com/doc_white4.htm
"DOC: One of the big problems in the muzzleloading industry is the lack of standardization that exists in the modern gun industry. That standardization is the lone factor that has made modern guns so predictable and trustworthy. We have been downright spoiled by that fact. It has also worked to the benefit of the manufacturers, because the customer knows that he can trust the products of even obscure makers, whch makes for easy sales.
Standardization in muzzleloading would have a similar effect, but it would present some problems to certain manufacturers. They would have to step up to the quality control home plate, but I think they would hit a homer if they did. The current situation is chaotic and confused, to say the least, somewhat akin to the teen years of human life; maturity approaches but at a distance. Thus the panic and distress, and thus the hate mail rather than a measured, responsible approach.
The question of extruded steel barrels is another matter. Douglas used extruded steel for their round ball barrels for years, extruding just the blanks then drilling, reaming and rifling as usual.
The steel was quite brittle; screwing in a breechplug would sometimes crack the barrel. They finally desisted after several lawsuits. Yes, their barrels were accurate and enjoyed a great reputation. Those that have survived for years are probably going to survive for centuries. Still, unless the technology of extrusion and annealing has changed, and as far as I know it has not, the question will eventually be answered in the same fashion (in the courts), since average pressures using modern sabots, rather than round balls, have about doubled.
RW: On the subject of barrels, I was surprised when a major muzzleloading manufacturer related their allowable rifling depth tolerances to me: it is .0035" to .006". I was further taken aback to learn that these "tolerances" are not just from barrel to barrel, but they are allowable tolerances in the very SAME barrel! Doc, you has mentioned in one of our conversations that realm of windage, not quite coincidentally, is the range that saboted projectiles can seal. Muzzleloading bullet specialists have additionally verified this. It seems that, for lack of a better term, many muzzleloading companies can "get away" with this type of slop as sabots have a bit of memory, and tolerate the rough ride though a barrel like this. Yet, pure lead conicals do not have this ability. It seems that White rifles' barrel tolerances, and their proficiency at throwing conicals into the same hole where other manufacturers' rifles fail, is far more than just rate of twist, GBQ steel, and barrel rigidity-but is contingent on your rifling tolerances as well. Is this the case?"

What is your opinion on the article?
Thanks, SHills

SHills, are you concerned about whether the Douglasbarrel is safe to shoot? If you are I would not be too concerned as it has made it this far, it probably has a few thousand more shots left in it. At least let me say, if it were mine I'd be shooting it.

As for Doc White knowing what he talks about. Yes, I have a lot of respect for what he has to say.

cayugad,
No not really worried for loads of 100 grains or less w/patched ball. Yes the article pointed out if it was going blow it would have by now....
Just thought it was a very interesting info about Douglas.
SHills

I had read that artical a while ago. I always thought Douglas Barrels were one of the better ones out there. That artical kind of surprised me actually.

I feel agenda driven interviews are nothing but ads for one of the parties involved. RW has lost all credibility in my book but I do not feel the same way about Mr. White.

As a T/C fan andniehbor of the plant if there were people being killed or maimed by the product it would be big news around here. I just don't get this guy he is always claiming someones product is blowing up with no stats to prove it and we sheeple are just suppose to take his word for it.

This post is not aimed at you SHill but it is funny how mfg will use a writer to do dirty work that would cause them to pay millions in court for lieble.

Have you noticed how saftey concerns all the sudden are RW's MO? Can you or anyone on the forum sight one case of a T/C gun properly loaded blowing up? Any Renegade at all?

Another thought is how does a lighter bullet in a sabot make more pressure than a heavy conical?

I've got nothing else really to add.

PBH

Just ny thoughts mind ya, so it doesn't carry a lot of weight... but as to your question?

I believe in some instances this really could happen, and probably does happen on more occasions than we would want to know about, but, and probably not by a veteran (and that is a poor word but you will get the idea). I have seen people insert a bullet into a sabots and then actually pound the combination down the barrel with a mallet, piece of wood, or some such thing.... that combination certainly could build up some un-wanted pressures...

Again it goes back to common sense and paying attention to detail.

PBH,
I can't remember ever hearing of a rifled ML blowing up but have heard of accidents w/smokeless powders.
I don't know RW or his history. By taking the interviewand putting it here to read in no way was to try to discredit anyone. I did notice that RW must have asked a question that he did not show because the start of the sentense didn't seem to fit.
"The question of extruded steel barrels is another matter."
I believe the point of the article to me was to show that White rifles go through a series of standarized tests that White developed that others don't do. He was adding creditability or selling it. Either way point taken. I think TC has stood the test of time and they are one of the best IF not the best out there.I don't really see how any powder load could ever damage a 1" octagon barrel. You would think it would just push out unburned powder unless there was an obstruction. I have always heard Douglas was one of the best manufactures out there. Never heard otherwise till I read that article. He didn't point out any specfic cases butI would think there could be a liability issue if it were untrue...

I have read some accounts of union armorers during the civil war recovering rifles that had numerous rounds shoved down the barrel w/ only one powder charge and the barrels didn't burst.

My point of bringing the article forward is striclyinformative, w/no hidden agendas.
SHills