Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Posted: 12/18/2016 6:44:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/18/2016 6:50:23 PM EST by iggy1337]
Will it still be a functional firearm or would the frame have to be considered beyond repair.

I know the question sounds retarded but its might be part of a case here and I know next to nothing about metallurgy.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 6:53:17 PM EST
How hot was it heated, glowing?
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 7:01:28 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Seanquigley:
How hot was it heated, glowing?
View Quote


Thats whats being thought out
Assume the yellow/orange like on that Forged in Fire show
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 7:02:45 PM EST
Make sure it doesn't twist or warp.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 7:07:11 PM EST
It is going to depend on the temp the frame reached and the alloy it is made from.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 7:12:17 PM EST
It could be a stainless S&W mod. 60
Dunno what alloy is used in that
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 7:12:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/18/2016 7:14:39 PM EST by AeroE]
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 7:13:41 PM EST
There are a number of factors to consider. What is the alloy content of the metal? How hot did it get, and for how long? Was it quenched, and if so in what (water, oil, air)? Was the piece annealed back after the hardening step? You can harden steel so much that it will shatter like glass....I have done it.

Another factor to consider is warping. Different thicknesses of steel cool at different rates, and this can cause warping. A warped pistol frame may be too twisted to be useful.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 7:18:24 PM EST
Not sure why you would want to do this. Heating the material to 1500f is going to cause oxidation and possible warpage. Quenching it in water is going to cause thermal shock which could lead to micro cracks and embrittlement.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 7:25:51 PM EST
Contact the manufacturer's QC department and ask if they would do a grain analysis?
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 7:31:19 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DamascusKnifemaker:
Not sure why you would want to do this. Heating the material to 1500f is going to cause oxidation and possible warpage. Quenching it in water is going to cause thermal shock which could lead to micro cracks and embrittlement.
View Quote


Not for me but hypothetically say somebody was busted for possesion of a frame. But this frame was cracked and the busted person tried to repair the cracks it by heating welding an hypotheticlly quenching.

The key part is would a court expert have to say the frame is a still a fucntional frame or must it be considered to be destroyed (from a technical standpoint, irrespoective of any US legal standpoint)

Link Posted: 12/18/2016 7:32:51 PM EST
Without a specific knowledge of steel composition you can't properly heat treat and temper. In other words, this is a recipe for disaster.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 7:38:16 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By iggy1337:


Not for me but hypothetically say somebody was busted for possesion of a frame. But this frame was cracked and the busted person tried to repair the cracks it by heating welding an hypotheticlly quenching.

The key part is would a court expert have to say the frame is a still a fucntional frame or must it be considered to be destroyed (from a technical standpoint, irrespoective of any US legal standpoint)
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By iggy1337:
Originally Posted By DamascusKnifemaker:
Not sure why you would want to do this. Heating the material to 1500f is going to cause oxidation and possible warpage. Quenching it in water is going to cause thermal shock which could lead to micro cracks and embrittlement.


Not for me but hypothetically say somebody was busted for possesion of a frame. But this frame was cracked and the busted person tried to repair the cracks it by heating welding an hypotheticlly quenching.

The key part is would a court expert have to say the frame is a still a fucntional frame or must it be considered to be destroyed (from a technical standpoint, irrespoective of any US legal standpoint)


I'm not a lawyer but unless it was cut to ATF specs your imaginary individual is probably fucked.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 7:45:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/18/2016 7:50:38 PM EST by mechanical]
It would probably come down to the laws in your country.

How would you define "functional"? Does "functional" include being "safe to fire"?

The way I'd look at it (not being a lawyer), I'd say that it was functional if it could be assembled and fire a few rounds.
It might blow up, break, or somehow fail on the 6th (or 12th, 18th, 87th, etc) round, but would you argue it to be non-functional prior to such a failure?

eta:
Pistol rounds are fairly low powered. .38 special could be run in a .357.
I think that even with a screwed up heat treat, you'll get a few rounds through it if the thing is close enough in dimensions to be assembled.
You might get a surprising number of rounds through it before it fails to where it won't function.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 7:50:20 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DamascusKnifemaker:


I'm not a lawyer but unless it was cut to ATF specs your imaginary individual is probably fucked.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DamascusKnifemaker:
Originally Posted By iggy1337:
Originally Posted By DamascusKnifemaker:
Not sure why you would want to do this. Heating the material to 1500f is going to cause oxidation and possible warpage. Quenching it in water is going to cause thermal shock which could lead to micro cracks and embrittlement.


Not for me but hypothetically say somebody was busted for possesion of a frame. But this frame was cracked and the busted person tried to repair the cracks it by heating welding an hypotheticlly quenching.

The key part is would a court expert have to say the frame is a still a fucntional frame or must it be considered to be destroyed (from a technical standpoint, irrespoective of any US legal standpoint)


I'm not a lawyer but unless it was cut to ATF specs your imaginary individual is probably fucked.


ATF specs would not be relevant here
The legal test is if and indipendant expert can come to the conclusion that the frame has been destoyed.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 7:51:12 PM EST
is the question "would it fire one round?"
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 7:55:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mechanical:
It would probably come down to the laws in your country.

How would you define "functional"? Does "functional" include being "safe to fire"?

The way I'd look at it (not being a lawyer), I'd say that it was functional if it could be assembled and fire a few rounds.
It might blow up, break, or somehow fail on the 6th (or 12th, 18th, 87th, etc) round, but would you argue it to be non-functional prior to such a failure?

eta:
Pistol rounds are fairly low powered. .38 special could be run in a .357.
I think that even with a screwed up heat treat, you'll get a few rounds through it if the thing is close enough in dimensions to be assembled.
You might get a surprising number of rounds through it before it fails to where it won't function.
View Quote


Thats the tricky bit. Safe to assume the frame in question has already met the shredder.
All that remain would be Photo's and the declaration of an officer that the frame shows signs of welding but that it still has to be considered fucntional (without any testing).
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 8:02:52 PM EST
The only thing that would effect function, is if the frame distorted enough to prevent the cylinder from turning, and internal parts from moving. 
So, depending where on the frame the crack is, it might render it inoperable, it might not have any effect. 

Where is the supposed location of the crack?  If it was the top-strap it could very well not effect anything (old revolvers didn't even have them till power levels grew) 
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 8:08:16 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By iggy1337:


ATF specs would not be relevant here
The legal test is if and indipendant expert can come to the conclusion that the frame has been destoyed.
View Quote


Opps, I didn't notice your Dutch flag.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 8:23:04 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Madcap72:
The only thing that would effect function, is if the frame distorted enough to prevent the cylinder from turning, and internal parts from moving. 
So, depending where on the frame the crack is, it might render it inoperable, it might not have any effect. 

Where is the supposed location of the crack?  If it was the top-strap it could very well not effect anything (old revolvers didn't even have them till power levels grew) 
View Quote


Looked to be at rear near sear and traveling to (but not completly) going to the cilinder
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 8:23:54 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DamascusKnifemaker:


Opps, I didn't notice your Dutch flag.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DamascusKnifemaker:
Originally Posted By iggy1337:


ATF specs would not be relevant here
The legal test is if and indipendant expert can come to the conclusion that the frame has been destoyed.


Opps, I didn't notice your Dutch flag.


No problemo apreciate the technical help
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 8:24:23 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By iggy1337:


Not for me but hypothetically say somebody was busted for possesion of a frame. But this frame was cracked and the busted person tried to repair the cracks it by heating welding an hypotheticlly quenching.

The key part is would a court expert have to say the frame is a still a fucntional frame or must it be considered to be destroyed (from a technical standpoint, irrespoective of any US legal standpoint)
View Quote

I believe you would be hard pressed to find an American gunsmith willing to declare a non-professional frame weld "safe". Or in other words, Americans in general would presume the gun unusable or unsafe unless the repair was done by someone trained and/or certified in welding/metallurgy.

In the USA it would still legally be a firearm, but practically speaking it would have no value except as a novelty or for whatever unmodified parts were still attached to the frame.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 8:27:29 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By iggy1337:


Thats the tricky bit. Safe to assume the frame in question has already met the shredder.
All that remain would be Photo's and the declaration of an officer that the frame shows signs of welding but that it still has to be considered fucntional (without any testing).
View Quote


In that case, it could be argued that the frame was warped by the welding process and not dimensionally capable of being assembled and fired, a curio along the lines of an 80% frame or whatever your equivalent might be.
Frankly, without assembling it (or attempting to) or taking measurements, we'll never know (unless the welds are obviously in non-critical locations, or they obviously interfere with function).
It'll come down to who has the burden of proof and/or convincing the judge/jury.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 8:27:31 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By iggy1337:


ATF specs would not be relevant here
The legal test is if and indipendant expert can come to the conclusion that the frame has been destoyed.
View Quote


In the U.S., there is no such thing as an independent expert. There's the government expert and your expert. The jury then has to determine who they believe
is telling the truth. I would never shoot a gun that was heated/cooled like you describe.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 8:28:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/18/2016 8:28:17 PM EST by JVD]
Safety be damned, I would reckon it could be made to fire. Doesn't matter if the cylinder won't index or if parts are missing or improperly fitted.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 8:34:37 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By C-4:


In the U.S., there is no such thing as an independent expert. There's the government expert and your expert. The jury then has to determine who they believe
is telling the truth. I would never shoot a gun that was heated/cooled like you describe.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By C-4:
Originally Posted By iggy1337:


ATF specs would not be relevant here
The legal test is if and indipendant expert can come to the conclusion that the frame has been destoyed.


In the U.S., there is no such thing as an independent expert. There's the government expert and your expert. The jury then has to determine who they believe
is telling the truth. I would never shoot a gun that was heated/cooled like you describe.


Our system is beyond fucked.
A tech expert on a subject is appointed by the court and loyal to the court (not DA or Defence) his/her testimony has legal effect. The judges are the ones that ask the expert questions. You can ask ceratin question but are not really allowed to cross examine like in the US.

You and try and call your own expert as a witness but it would mean nothing. The court appointed expert testimony is all that is needed for the conviction

Link Posted: 12/18/2016 8:38:02 PM EST
We're the welds machined afterwards? Would the frame accommodate the parts necessary to function? If not, I would think it would be an attempt to manufacture but not yet a firearm.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 8:39:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/18/2016 8:45:47 PM EST by buckshot_jim]
sorry wrong thread
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 8:41:38 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By iggy1337:


Looked to be at rear near sear and traveling to (but not completly) going to the cilinder
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By iggy1337:
Originally Posted By Madcap72:
The only thing that would effect function, is if the frame distorted enough to prevent the cylinder from turning, and internal parts from moving. 
So, depending where on the frame the crack is, it might render it inoperable, it might not have any effect. 

Where is the supposed location of the crack?  If it was the top-strap it could very well not effect anything (old revolvers didn't even have them till power levels grew) 


Looked to be at rear near sear and traveling to (but not completly) going to the cilinder

I mean, I'm no expert, but I've handled a LOT of guns, and seen a lot of sketch stuff overseas that most people at a glance would say would not function but did. 

So, it comes down to a few things I suppose, the semantic meaning of "destroyed" being one since you use that word specifically. Is there any legal definition you have for what a destroyed firearm is?  There are plenty of "destroyed" gun that are welded back together sometimes from receiver parts of multiple guns and made to function.  So a destroyed gun (using the plain  speak meaning of the term) doesn't mean a gun can not be made to function once again.  There is lots of evidence of damaged guns being repaired and returned to service with welding. The second part of that being as evidenced in Kyhber Pass guns, people don't need to be exerts at firearms construction and repair to make or repair guns. 

With what you're describing, a person could have welded the crack, quenched it, then through simple trial and error repaired it to the point of functioning. Heck if a person was really desperate to make it at least shoot, the parts could be left out and only the hammer and spring installed and manually line the cylinder up and thump and release the hammer. 

So I would suppose the best answer in this case, would be something along the lines of "unless evidence exists proving the gun was incapable of firing, a welded crack and reassembly would not render the gun necessarily inoperable."  From there, it would depend on how "destroyed" is defined. 


Link Posted: 12/18/2016 8:43:54 PM EST
I'm curious, what would you like to prove or disprove?  
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 8:50:06 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Madcap72:

I mean, I'm no expert, but I've handled a LOT of guns, and seen a lot of sketch stuff overseas that most people at a glance would say would not function but did. 

So, it comes down to a few things I suppose, the semantic meaning of "destroyed" being one since you use that word specifically. Is there any legal definition you have for what a destroyed firearm is?  There are plenty of "destroyed" gun that are welded back together sometimes from receiver parts of multiple guns and made to function.  So a destroyed gun (using the plain  speak meaning of the term) doesn't mean a gun can not be made to function once again.  There is lots of evidence of damaged guns being repaired and returned to service with welding. The second part of that being as evidenced in Kyhber Pass guns, people don't need to be exerts at firearms construction and repair to make or repair guns. 

With what you're describing, a person could have welded the crack, quenched it, then through simple trial and error repaired it to the point of functioning. Heck if a person was really desperate to make it at least shoot, the parts could be left out and only the hammer and spring installed and manually line the cylinder up and thump and release the hammer. 

So I would suppose the best answer in this case, would be something along the lines of "unless evidence exists proving the gun was incapable of firing, a welded crack and reassembly would not render the gun necessarily inoperable."  From there, it would depend on how "destroyed" is defined. 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Madcap72:
Originally Posted By iggy1337:
Originally Posted By Madcap72:
The only thing that would effect function, is if the frame distorted enough to prevent the cylinder from turning, and internal parts from moving. 
So, depending where on the frame the crack is, it might render it inoperable, it might not have any effect. 

Where is the supposed location of the crack?  If it was the top-strap it could very well not effect anything (old revolvers didn't even have them till power levels grew) 


Looked to be at rear near sear and traveling to (but not completly) going to the cilinder

I mean, I'm no expert, but I've handled a LOT of guns, and seen a lot of sketch stuff overseas that most people at a glance would say would not function but did. 

So, it comes down to a few things I suppose, the semantic meaning of "destroyed" being one since you use that word specifically. Is there any legal definition you have for what a destroyed firearm is?  There are plenty of "destroyed" gun that are welded back together sometimes from receiver parts of multiple guns and made to function.  So a destroyed gun (using the plain  speak meaning of the term) doesn't mean a gun can not be made to function once again.  There is lots of evidence of damaged guns being repaired and returned to service with welding. The second part of that being as evidenced in Kyhber Pass guns, people don't need to be exerts at firearms construction and repair to make or repair guns. 

With what you're describing, a person could have welded the crack, quenched it, then through simple trial and error repaired it to the point of functioning. Heck if a person was really desperate to make it at least shoot, the parts could be left out and only the hammer and spring installed and manually line the cylinder up and thump and release the hammer. 

So I would suppose the best answer in this case, would be something along the lines of "unless evidence exists proving the gun was incapable of firing, a welded crack and reassembly would not render the gun necessarily inoperable."  From there, it would depend on how "destroyed" is defined. 


No real definition of destoyed I'm afraid.
The frame not being around gives some wiggle room to contruct a theory as to why the frame was so redardedly repaired as to be in fact destroyed.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 8:52:28 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Madcap72:
I'm curious, what would you like to prove or disprove?  
View Quote


Dont really have to 'prove' something.
For a legit defence you would only have to create the probability that the frame was in fact destoyed.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 9:18:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By iggy1337:


Dont really have to 'prove' something.
For a legit defence you would only have to create the probability that the frame was in fact destoyed.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By iggy1337:
Originally Posted By Madcap72:
I'm curious, what would you like to prove or disprove?  


Dont really have to 'prove' something.
For a legit defence you would only have to create the probability that the frame was in fact destoyed.

I guess a better way to put it would be what is the desired end state or goal you're looking for. or would like to see? 

In my mind it's easier to make a case the gun was or could have been made operable therefore not destroyed. (I.E. Kyber pass guns)
It would be harder to make one where the gun would be inoperable and therefore destroyed. But not impossible to show a probability of being destroyed. 

I suppose if I was in a position where I had to create that possibility I would start by showing how revolvers are precision clockwork like implements where even being too dirty can bind the action and prevent them from firing. 
Then I would go on about how critical parts alignment is, and that welding itself can pull metal out of alignment. If "destroyed" is the key phrase you're looking for and functionality doesn't matter as much, It would be much easier to define it as destroyed. 

Does the picture show any of the internal lockwork, or just an exterior shot of the repair? 




Link Posted: 12/18/2016 9:29:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/18/2016 9:31:00 PM EST by AeroE]
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 9:44:21 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:


Photos are insufficient for determining whether the firearm would function, or not, after the welding. If there were accompanying measurements that showed the factory blueprint dimensions were maintained, then maybe, but that would also require detailed measurements of the cylinder to barrel gap, the relation of the cylinder bolt, and everything else required for a functioning revolver.

The firearm is more likely destroyed and non functioning than not.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AeroE:
Originally Posted By iggy1337:


Dont really have to 'prove' something.
For a legit defence you would only have to create the probability that the frame was in fact destoyed.


Photos are insufficient for determining whether the firearm would function, or not, after the welding. If there were accompanying measurements that showed the factory blueprint dimensions were maintained, then maybe, but that would also require detailed measurements of the cylinder to barrel gap, the relation of the cylinder bolt, and everything else required for a functioning revolver.

The firearm is more likely destroyed and non functioning than not.
That's a much better way to put it. 
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 9:51:02 PM EST
So is OP an attorney? The handgun is in your or the court's possesion?
If so, then you need to get a small sample cut off the thing in the area it is cracked by a reputable and certified metallurgical testing lab, and have them run spectrochemical analysis on it to tell you what alloy it is. S&W isn't foing to say exactly what they alloys are, or what their exact manufacturing process is.
The test lab may also have some welding engineers or experts that could suggest how the person could have caused the problems he did.

Its probably a 400 series stainless alloy, or maybe a PH grade.

You certainly don't want to rely on this site for any advice like this.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 10:06:11 PM EST
It's possible that a welded frame COULD hold up, it's often done. There are a lot of ifs but for sure the first shot would get off.


.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 10:11:02 PM EST



Stainless might want an oil quench, but it's been a long time
Top Top