Quality of old steel vs. new steel...

bamboozler · Post by **bamboozler** » Tue May 06, 2008 8:47 pm

bonasa's thread about upgrading a Sterlingworth vs. buying a CSMC CE solicited a couple responses that stated or insinuated the steel quality of original Foxes is inferior to the new steel of CSMC Fox Repros.

We are all trying to learn here...would someone please offer documented proof, other than heresay, that the "old steel" is somehow inferior to the "new steel" being produced today? Anyone here been shooting modern ammo through their old Foxes for a few decades that can share their findings of metal failure of the barrel steel with us caused by shooting modern ammo?

birdawg · Post by **birdawg** » Tue May 06, 2008 10:22 pm

Old steel should not be a problem, after all they made the Titanic out of it.

mike campbell · Post by **mike campbell** » Tue May 06, 2008 11:27 pm

And the USS New Jersey.

Researcher · Post by **Researcher** » Tue May 06, 2008 11:29 pm

Recent reports have indicated the builders used inferior materials in the rush to get the Titanic completed on time.

bamboozler · Post by **bamboozler** » Wed May 07, 2008 2:52 pm

Posted by Researcher: Tue May 06, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"No upgrade is ever going to have the modern steels of a fresh CSMC gun."

C'mon Researcher...please "share the knowledge."

Posted by Abner: Tue May 06, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Just the new steels available today make the CSMC a better choice---think of all the problems with shells that will be eliminated."

How 'bout you Abner?

nitro proof · Post by **nitro proof** » Thu May 08, 2008 1:12 am

The best of the new steel alloys are better than the old, the equipment used nowadays can produce a better more pure melt with all of the qualities of the old and at a lighter weight. The new steel can be made harder without sacrificing the metallurgical properties of toughness and elasticity. Steel for a shotgun has to be hard enough to be tough but not so hard as to be brittle and soft enough to be elastic so that the barrel springs back into shape everytime a load passes down the tube but hard enough to not deform (change its shape)yet not be brittle. The point that should be made is that if the new steels are better--to what point? Unless your a Fabbri or Rizzini trying to justify 125K price tags it's all irrelevant.

The Fox and Parker Shotguns circa 1910 used much the same type of steel as the best English guns of that era. There is a story that Eley owned a Boss that they used to test batches of shells. the gun was in constant use for the better part of a century and after a million shells it was sent to Purdey for inspection and the report came back "no appreciable wear". Whitworth steel has been in use since 1879-80 and many of these old black powder era barrels are still in use. The lifespan of a set of Chilton or Stanton locks has never been determined because their earliest locks are still dropping the hammers. The bottom line is that if you shoot appropriate shells through a well made gun of good design like the older Fox the steel those old gunmakers used was more than sufficient for the job at hand.

So, let's be fair in our comparison of a new CSMC Fox vs an excellent condition older Fox--You won't shoot enough shells in your life for steel to be an issue so I would make my decision on other criteria.