C.R. Douglas built Flintlock? Anyone know him?

[AZ Longrifle]

I bought my 1st Flintlock Rifle by C.R. Douglas.
Anyone know who he is or where he is located?
Thank you!

[James Kelly]

CR Douglas is a barrel maker in West Virginia. They have long made good modern-style barrels.  From around 1960 through 1985 they made muzzle-loading octagonal barrels. Good reputation for accuracy, lousey steel.

[Frank]

That's G.R. Douglas rifle barrel company. I worked there from 1963 til 1967. The barrels were made from octagon bar stock that was cut into 42" blanks. They were then drilled, reamed and cut rifled on Pratt Whitney equipment. Your rifle was not made at the Douglas factory, some one else evidently built the gun and only used the Douglas barrel, all of which were stamped with the company name. They also made muzzle loading barrels for Golden Age Arms. The Douglas Barrel Company is still in business, but they have quit making ML barrels. Douglas barrels are considered to be excellent shooters and their muzzle loading barrels were some of the best.

[R.M.]

Frank, do you know for a fact that the CVA Mountain Rifles did or did not sport Douglas barrels? A good many of us would like to know?

[Captchee]

different Douglas i believe RM
 CVA use  Douglas barrels out of  I believe Montana
 I can tell you that they were bought out by Green mountain  many, many years ago
 maybe CVA used more then one douglas  of that i could not say .
 i can tell you though that i  have a friend that has a  replacment barrel  on his CVA .  its one of the last  douglas marked barrels . he has still has the invoice and paperwork  from Douglas
 the adress is Montana  

As to barrel steel . This is always a heated debate .
Today the growing consensus is that harder is better .
 Drawn steels are better the extruded ………..
 But that wasn’t always so .
  It doesn’t really mater when one realizes that the  steels used today are far stronger then any of the irons used  in the 17 and 1800’s  or extruded steels  that came about in the later 1800’s
 Not to mention far stronger the  barrels used on  long range target rifles of the 1900-1930’s  
 Many of the barrel companies  who produced muzzleloading as well as center fire barrels had the same problems during the 1950 through  I believe as late as the 1980’s . it wasn’t the steel they used  but the process of extruding  that was the issue .
 When you extrude steel , you get  a more rounded  molecular  make up . Where if you draw . That make up is more like a grain in that its long , narrow and stretched   . Thus a better and more improved  process

[James Kelly]

Steel metallurgy is not Rocket Science.

It is, however, metallurgy, an actual engineering discipline

Talk to a degreed  + experienced (in steel) metallurgist if you want to know how appropriate free machining screw stock is for a rifle barrel.

[Captchee]

if you want to know todays appropriate free machining screw stock is for a rifle barrel.

 again things change  

[cb]

Talk to a degreed + experienced (in steel) metallurgist if you want to know how appropriate free machining screw stock is for a rifle barrel.

Perhaps referring to that article in the Old Buckskin Report? - if so he states right at the beginning that he knows NOTHING about firearms and the pressure concerns, etc, but then goes on to make a couple of statements that in fact would depend on the type of firearms the steel would be used for - problem is what is right for smokeless and what is right for BP are two different things. In the case of a metallurgist who knows nothing of firearms his opinion is then just that an opinion and not fact based on research.  For instance in that article he stressed the problems of work hardening - an easy fix by using the proper annealing techniques.
Then again ask a metallurgist what he would think of a welded wrought iron tube being used for a gun barrel........
IIRC some folks blew up some Douglas barrels, due to litigation and insurance concerns they quit making BP barrels. The barrels blown in all cases were due to operator error not the steel used.
Even "proper" barrels steels will blow given the right circumstances - I have a PDF by a metallurgist who does understand guns and will try and post it - it illustrates several blowups.

[Frank]

Douglas sold barrels to Mowrey Rifle Works and as Chuck said, through gross stupidity, one of their rifles failed. Mowery sued Douglas barrels and that is when they quit making ML barrels. The insurance company settled the case, even though it wasn't their fault, to keep from having to pay the litigation costs. That is the only time that I know of any kind of complaint against their barrels. Douglas never sold barrels to CVA. I have shot Douglas Barrels all my life, both muzzle loading and modern and have found them to be highly accurate and safe to shoot. Douglas Barrels are highly desired throughout the world for both hunting guns and target shooting. They use 4140 Chrome moly round stock for their modern barrels. A brass ML barrel is safe to shoot if it is properly loaded. Go Figure

[James Kelly]

I am personally well aware of the details involved in the last blow-up, which may be the one that finally convinced Douglas to stop making, or at least advertising, muzzle loading barrels about 1985.

One barrel fragment showed that a pre-existing crack had been present on the outside surface. The steel used does tend to crack when cold drawn. D. barrels were heavily cold drawn to get the octagon shape. This old crack was not even this evidence that lead Douglas to settle. The gunmaker had proof tested the barrel reasonably, but it survived that proof load to come apart some 200-odd shots later.

A University Professor did metallography that found a lot of little cracks  (Later on he was responsible, along with an intelligent lawyer, in getting a major shotgun manufacturer to improve their barrels. After they had crippled something over 95, mostly skeet, shooters).

The worst thing one can do to any muzzle loading barrel, short of using smokeless, is to leave a gap between ball and powder.

Sure, every one knows that.

Just like everyone knows not to load ball without powder.

Personally I like a barrel that will at least not fragment like a grenade if I make a common error, even though yes I mark my ramrod and have never ever made any kind of mistake in loading, since 1954.

This discussion will never end.

My own use of nice, accurate 12L14 barrels did end, in 1985.

[Captchee]

again  i believe the Douglas  CVA contracted with was out of Montana .
 later it became Montana Barrels  who was later bought by GM barrels

 now i dont recall as to if Montana barrels was actually just a name change or if it was a separate company that bought out Douglas .
 As I said I believe the Douglas frank worked for and the Douglas who made barrels for  the short time  for CVA  would not be the same company

As to barrel failures  ANY barrel can fail  and under the right conditions fracture  and send shrapnel
 We live in a day and age where people are sue happy .
 As such companies constantly try to  eliminate the stupidity of their customers . Which IMO will never fully be done .
 People do all kinds of things . I have seen  people try and load  mismatched shells .
 How many here know someone who   load 3 inch magnums in a shotgun  chambers for 2 ¾  shells ?
 My hand s up .

 One of the things that I used to read all the time was  where someone would  ask a question about  a bolster on a rifle  being lose  . what they should do  .
 Inevitably someone would post to just tighten it up .
 Never mind there is a reason  its  become lose  to begin with ..

 I have even seen people load duplex loads of smokeless and black  and then proudly exclaim how clear and crisp the report was ./ when  advise of the stupidity of such an action the  proudly proclaim , they have done that for years and never had an issue .
 But rest assured if the barrel failed  they would sue  .

 But you never hear about  what  actually happened  only what supposedly happened  which is always the fault of the  maker .
 Then you have those who say : I ONLY use barrels made from company X because they use XXXX steel .
 Never mind  there is no proof testing standards in the US . The best you get is  batch test  every so many barrels . Who checks  to make sure  that company  maintains quality control  or that their batch tests  meet even their own  standards ?
 Not to mention the only way to know they actually use what they say , is to send your barrel off to be tested  or  find out after a failure.

 
 While in the service I  rejected an M60 one time  for a broken bolt  which had a locking lug completely removed . The base armor , one of those high falutin  degree holders  demanded I return it to inventory .
 I refused base on the design called for two lugs  NOT one  and that i would not be responsible  for the stupidity of a so called knowledgeable person  who was a civilian to boot .
 He over road me .
 But he answered to the base commander  when a  young basic trainee was hurt  a few months later ..
 The man wasn’t even an Armor and had  no real  firearms maintenance experience . Ahhh but he did have an impressive pedigree

 In the end  the simple fact is that the material used in barrels today far exceeds the material used 100 years ago. Which far exceeds the material from 100 years before that .

 By the amount of firearms in this country ,  you would think our history would be full of  one handed , one eyed  scarred face people  with grave yards full of  markers  of the dead whos’ guns blew up

as to the barrels  made by douglas  being discussed . Frank can correct me if im wrong here but  the barrels douglas used were not drawn  cold or hot  but   made from EXSTRUDED  stock , then bored, reamed  and then rifled .
 this can be done HOT or cold .

 Fluid steel anyone

[James Kelly]

This high falutin' degree holder would like to note, respectfully, that Douglas's steel supplier got the nice sharp octagon shape by cold drawing the barrel blanks. Whether this supplier started with an annealed round blank, or an annealed hot-rolled octagonal blank I would not know.

They were not extruded.

Steel can be extruded, using molten glass for a lubricant, but for an octagonal bar it is much simpler to hot roll that shape. I personally have dealt with extruded 19%Cr 35%Ni alloy shapes but haven't had occasion to run across extruded steel shapes.

A hot rolled octagon bar will not have the tolerances or precise shape required for a muzzle loading barrel. So, whether they started with a round or a hot rolled octagonal blank, Douglas barrels were heavily cold drawn to the final octagon the customer saw.

After cold drawing to shape the barrels were not stress relieved,  except for the ones sold to Golden Age Arms.

I could tell you exactly how I know, and I suppose you could prove it for yourself using a scrap barrel piece, but then I'd just be actin' like a High Falutin Degreed guy.

[Captchee]

Doc White , White firearms:

 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.

Extrusion is a process used to create objects of a fixed cross-sectional profile. A material is pushed or drawn through a die of the desired cross-section. The two main advantages of this process over other manufacturing processes is its ability to create very complex cross-sections and work materials that are brittle, because the material only encounters compressive and shear stresses. It also forms finished parts with an excellent surface finish.[1]

Extrusion may be continuous (theoretically producing indefinitely long material) or semi-continuous (producing many pieces). The extrusion process can be done with the material hot or cold.

Hot extrusion
Hot extrusion is done at an elevated temperature to keep the material from work hardening and to make it easier to push the material through the die. Most hot extrusions are done on horizontal hydraulic presses that range from 250 to 12,000 tons. Pressures range from 30 to 700 MPa (4,400 to 102,000 psi), therefore lubrication is required, which can be oil or graphite for lower temperature extrusions, or glass powder for higher temperature extrusions. The biggest disadvantage of this process is its cost for machinery and its upkeep

Cold extrusion
Cold extrusion is done at room temperature or near room temperature. The advantages of this over hot extrusion are the lack of oxidation, higher strength due to cold working, closer tolerances, good surface finish, and fast extrusion speeds if the material is subject to hot shortness.[1]

Materials that are commonly cold extruded include: lead, tin, aluminum, copper, zirconium, titanium, molybdenum, beryllium, vanadium, niobium, and steel.

Examples of products produced by this process are: collapsible tubes, fire extinguisher cases, shock absorber cylinders, automotive pistons, and gear blanks.

Warm extrusion
Warm extrusion is done above room temperature, but below the recrystallization temperature of the material the temperatures ranges from 800 to 1800 °F (424 to 975 °C). It is usually used to achieve the proper balance of required forces, ductility and final extrusion properties.

 i would point out  here the NO ONE here knows it all . we all come from verying back ground with varying degrees of experience  .
 On this forum we have PhD’s , Engineers , Historians , black smiths ,  gunsmiths , hobbyists , you name it , its all here .
 We learn from each other  and No ones opinion is more valid then another’s  

 I don’t think anyone is challenging you experience or training . Most certainly not me .
 But again I point out that  thought firearms history , just about every type of material  has been used . From  basic pig iron to today’s cutting edge ceramics and composite barrels .
 Time change,  opinions change , manufacturing changes .

 While  I can appreciate that you are a learned person in your own field  .
I still have  a problem believing that if these older softer barrels were so dangerous where is  the millions of  documented evidence showing  clear and dangerous  failures.

 With the vast amount of simple soft Iron , Damascus , laminated steal , drawn steel , extruded steel ,  surely the  is millions of   accounts to document .
 However if we look back where  and what is a vast amount of these case actually pertained to .
High velocity , high pressure  firearms using modern  so called safe/ better / improved  materials
 Myself . I would rather have a barrel made of a material that  is soft enough to bulge  from a loading issue  over one that will split like a banana    reach back and give someone a third eye .
 But that’s just me

  One can never build an item idiot proof  for as soon as you do a new kind of idiot will come along

 this seems to have led up real well for its age ?







so much for not turning into shrapnel
guess a new type of idioyt came along






so be safe fellas and be nice to each other

[James Kelly]

Myself . I would rather have a barrel made of a material that is soft enough to bulge from a loading issue over one that will split like a banana reach back and give someone a third eye .
But that’s just me

Absolutely. That is the problem I myself have with barrels of high tensile strength, yet low ductility steel.

With respect to using smokeless or guns with loose breech parts, I think there is nothing to be done about idiots. They shall always be with us.

But, to quote Bakers Remarks on the Rifle  " . . . More accidents happen from a neglect of this precaution than can be imagined: if the ball be not rammed close on the powder, the intervening air will frequently cause the barrel to burst; not, I confess, that there is so much danger with rifle barrels as with fowling pieces, the former being made much stronger; but, exclusive of any danger, it is an absolute requisite to insure a true flight of the ball, as no piece will carry perfect, unless this method be strictly adhered to. When the rammer is marked, as before mentioned, it will show when the ball is close rammed to the powder; and if, by mistake, he should load his rifle twice, the error would instantly be detected."

I suspect most of us have made mistakes in loading our rifles & fowlers. When there is an air gap, it is possible for pressures at times to rise to extreme levels, I believe I have seen 60,000 psi, and others say even higher. Sometimes it is a disaster, other times it merely rings the barrel, or no ill effects are seen.

It is a matter of opinion--and one that may generate some lively arguement--but my own is that loading the ball off the powder is what product liability guys today would call a "Forseeable Misuse"

Meaning even careful humans make errors.

During a Remington Arms collectors visit to Ilion I saw a magnetic partical inspection machine for checking rifle barrels for cracks. I think I recall Remington checked each and every rifle barrel. I did see one guy checking each shotgun barrel blank using another device, called "eddy current".

If one were to standardize something in US barrel/and or gun-making, it would be, in my opinon, to check each barrel for the cracks and seams that do in fact occur in modern steel. They are uncommon, but not a good thing to have when something goes wrong. I think, but again have not checked lately, that Thompson Centre either does, or did, magnetic particle inspect each Hawken barrel blank for defects.      

I just got a second hand Caywood Mountain Rifle, barrel supposed to be of 8620 nickel-chromium-molybdenum steel. Nice tough, gummy steel, though I do not believe it was checked for defects. Wonderful rifle, enough sparks to set the rug afire, and I can actually lift it with a damaged shoulder. So I'm shooting it.

Better (IMHO) steel or magnetic partical inspection, both cost $$$.[/quote]