How many decades guns can be considered safe to shoot....

[saturno_v]

....for their intended cartridges, even when they are in tip-top shape??

I heard all the time of people with original Winchesters and Colts from the 19th century that need to "take it easy" shooting their pieces with very light loads (at pressure leves even lighter than their original loads) because of potentially weakened steel.

Case in point, I have a sporterized Mauser 98 rebarreled in 30-06 (action built during the Nazi era, it has a swastika stamped on it) in perfect shape and 3 Mosin Nagant 91/3 built at the end of the 30's (two in 1938 and one in 1939) in gorgeaous conditions.

Not to mention a Remington 740 (the 740 was built between 1955 and 1960)

Did metallurgy progressed enough in the 20th century that the "old gun problem" is irrelevant with WWII era weapons? Does steel "age" indipendently from how heavily the gun has been used (round count)? It becomes brittle and it weakens?

I know it may sounds stupid but my question is: Can I safely shoot my Mauser and my Mosins, let's say, 20-30 years from now?



Regards

 

[Sam1911]

Generally, it is not the steel weakening over time that's the problem.

Generally, there is a simpler answer. In the case of many older firearms, they were designed for black powder cartridges or smokeless cartridges that were designed to produce the same gentle levels of pressure as the B.P. did. You might not want to shoot modern ammo loaded to twice or three times the pressure in one of those.

Other times, there was a manufacturing defect (like the early 1903 rifles) where some process like heat treating was performed incorrectly and the guns are actually flawed.

There are some firearms in which the steel may have actually weakened. I'm thinking of the old "twist" steel shotguns which were fused out of differing materials (like a Damascus steel blade) and years of powder fouling and such may have deteriorated the integrity of the gun. They may actually not be safe to fire, even with original power loads, because of degradation.

Having said that, modern guns, made from WWII onward, are likely to be safe to fire for centuries to come.

-Sam

 

[pegan]

I would guess round count has more to do with it than anything else. An older gun is more likely to have been fired more times, the more times it has been fired, the closer to the end of its life.....Each time you fire a gun you stress it a bit more and there is going to be a point at which it will break. With older, all original, more collectible guns, the value depreciates tremendously once parts have been replaced, thus the desire to not break it....

Just my opinion. No real basis of fact cited. Just horse sense.

 

[saturno_v]

Sam

What you say is interesting....so in theory you can take, let's say, a Mosin in very good shape, put it in a gun safe making sure that doesn't rust over time and it could theoretically safely fire hundreds of rounds, let's say 500 years from now??? (assuming the 7,62 X54R is still available by then....well it has 118 years already...so there are good chances!!! )

 

[oneounceload]

People are shooting guns all the time from the 1900's and earlier - shoot what the gun was designed to shoot, and avoid the temptation to try and fire an ICBM in a bottle rocket gun......older guns were built and designed for certain pressures.......so many folks buy a gun, even a modern one, and the first question they always seem to ask is can they shoot something WAY beyond what the maker says, instead of just buying the proper gun for the proper load.

I have friends that shoot Damascus barreled shotguns - with the proper loads they are fine....but these folks KNOW what they're doing and what is safe

The same holds true for pistols and rifles - if you feel the absolute need to shoot some hyper-velocity uber-magnum, then do so in the proper gun, not one made years ago before that time

 

[Sam1911]

you can take, let's say, a Mosin in very good shape, put it in a gun safe making sure that doesn't rust over time and it could theoretically fire safely hundred of rounds, let's say 500 years from now?

Clean and dry so it doesn't rust? Yes!

[This isn't directly relevant but it's a cool story so I'll tell it. A few years ago I saw an exhibit from the National Firearms Museum of a musket carried over to Plimoth on the Mayflower by one of the original Pilgrims. (Who later became one of the colony's governors.) The history of the firearm was that he had purchased it in Belgium, but the lock mechanism had been scavenged from a previous musket made almost 100 years prior by P. Beretta in Italy. I saw it in about 2005, making that lock almost 500 years old. It appeared to be completely functional...though they wouldn't let me try it. ]

 

[hobbeeman]

It also may depend on the gun...there are some manufacturers of guns built this year that I would not shoot more than 5 times!

 

[mongo4567]

I have a Swedish Mauser from before the turn of the century. It was designed for a "modern" smokeless powder load. I would shoot it with an equivilent load if I was around in a few hundred years.

 

[PT1911]

It is round count rather than time that wears out a gun...(if it is taken care of...ie not allowed to rust and the wood taken care of)


Another question to ask is whether or not you have the ammo available that the gun was originally built to fire...

 

[JellyJar]

I can't say where I read this but it was a long time ago. Some steel alloys or steel itself can "crystallize" and become weak.

Please tell me if I am right or wrong.

 

[mljdeckard]

You are more likely to wear out the rifling than damage the action. The barrel can be replaced.

 

[RS14]

As an interesting note, the Dardanelles Guns were fired in anger 300 years after their construction, with success.

 

[browningguy]

Did metallurgy progressed enough in the 20th century that the "old gun problem" is irrelevant with WWII era weapons?

Yes, actually. I regularly shoot my Martini's made in the 1870's, and an 1891 Mauser, all with moderate loads. Metallurgy was not as exact a science in the 19th C. and they did not have the tools to control the steel making process as precisely as were developed in the 20th C., even major American manufacturers (Springfield and Rock Island) had some problems with heat treating into the early 20th C..

 

[7X57chilmau]

Some bronze barrel weapons have suffered crystallization of the bronze. Common in old blunderbusses. Generally, this isn't a problem in steel.

Damascus barrels and wrought iron are actually more resistant to rust damage than modern plain carbon steels. The slag content works for you in these old steels.

I've got a 1895 mauser that's also happy still with loads for which it was designed.

J

 

[Slamfire]

....for their intended cartridges, even when they are in tip-top shape??

I heard all the time of people with original Winchesters and Colts from the 19th century that need to "take it easy" shooting their pieces with very light loads (at pressure leves even lighter than their original loads) because of potentially weakened steel.

This death trap was state of the art around 1914. I am certain this would fail all modern safety requirements.



You just have to read books on metullurgical history to understand how primitive things were at the turn of the century.

The materials of that age were greatly inferior to the same steel made today. Our ability to process and inspect is so much better. They were just at the start of the development of steel technology. Sophisticated steels and standardized steel tests, such as shock tests, were still in development.

Plain carbon steel is the most common gun material prior to 1920. Nickel Steel was considered high tech for the era.


Silicon Steel patented in 1886

Manganese Steel licensed to use in US in 1890

Nickel Steel Armor adopted in by US Navy1891,

1910 Monnartz patented Stainless Steel

I recall hearing that when the Titantic sunk, they did not have a definition for cold temperature fracture toughness.

The basic issues, as I see it, were that period process controls produced a highly varible product. Eyeballs were used to judge temperature, completeness of carbon reduction, etc. Eyeballs were also used to judge heat treatment. Instruments of that era were crude, if calibrated. Calibration was a new concept. Modern alloy steels through harden much better than plain carbon and have much higher ultimate and yeild strengths.

Go to matweb and check out the ultimate and tensile for 4140 (a WWII era gun steel, still used) and 1030. 1030 is close to the receiver steels used on a M1903, and probably the Mauser. Make sure the comparisions are for things of same thickness and same heat treat.

Case in point, I have a sporterized Mauser 98 rebarreled in 30-06 (action built during the Nazi era, it has a swastika stamped on it) in perfect shape and 3 Mosin Nagant 91/3 built at the end of the 30's (two in 1938 and one in 1939) in gorgeaous conditions

.

Not a problem. These receivers were still of plain carbon steel, but process controls were much better. Slave labor guns have issues due to sabotage, but pre war or early war 98K’s?, just go shoot it.

Using cartridges that do not give much more cartridge thrust than an 8mm Mauser. Structural design limits are real, regardless of age. (I would never use a Weatherby mag in a K98 receiver)

Not to mention a Remington 740 (the 740 was built between 1955 and 1960)

Go shoot it.

Did metallurgy progressed enough in the 20th century that the "old gun problem" is irrelevant with WWII era weapons?

In my opinion, yes.

Does steel "age" indipendently from how heavily the gun has been used (round count)? It becomes brittle and it weakens?

Corrosion, heat, chemical attack, (and there may be more) will damage steel. Steel does not "weaken" just sitting on the shelf.

I believe the receiver seats, bolt lugs were sized for an infinite fatique life. (true when I reverse engineered a M1 bolt) Other things, like extractors, firing pins, ejectors, etc, I never had one fail in a M98, but I expect they will have a finite life. Always feed from the magazine. Always replace your mainspring. Old mainsprings weaken.

And be careful about your reloads. Poor process controls at your reloading bench are far more likely to shatter your receivers than "old metal".