WTK diference betwen seamles and DOM tube

[MGD]

Just like it says is ther a diference betwen the two.I'm looking for a tube for a project and came across a 3'' od 4140 tube with 5/16 wall I asked the seler if it was DOM and response was its seamless is this safe to use or should I keep looking.Thanks fopr any help.

[Double D]

Seamless tubing is what you want.  5/16 is marginal.  The recommended thickness for a seamless tube is 3/8 in. That is for a liner not a cannon by itself.

[Powder keg]

Hi, I was just wondering, 3/8" thickness? I would think diffrent sozed guns would require diff. minnimun thickness sleaves. Is that 3/8'' for all cannons or certian sizes? Looks like I better get that book :oops:

[MGD]

Thanks for the replies I'll keep looking .What I'm looking to build is a black powder tube for a 60mm mortar kit theres a guy in Idaho that has made about a 100 of them but the cost is 450 a tube .He uses .250 wall DOM tubing od has to be about 2.75 length 24-30'' if anyone has any ideas I'd love to here them or leads to a proper piece of tube thanks.
Mike

[Double D]

Any discussion of making mortar tubes based on the Stokes design, of which the 60mm is  one has been put off limits on this board.  The Stokes is a post 1898 design and in our opinion does not meet ATF's definition of an antique or replica cannon.

If you can provide a letter from ATF saying that the muzzleloading version of the Stokes design is considered  as meeting the antique muzzle loader design we will allow discussion after the letter is posted on this board.

We do this for several reasons.  We don't want anyone to think that we here are saying that the making of a Stokes  design is exempt as a an antique just because it muzzleloads, that is for ATF to say.  We also don't want ATF setting up a data mine on this board to look for unintentional innocent violators.

If others say it's legal to make a muzzleloading Stokes style mortar, that's fine, they can defend their position with ATF.  We here will only deal with what is obvious to us as clearly being with in the definition.

Check here for additional information

This from the FAQ's ATF website.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#m28

M28) Are muzzleloading cannons classified as destructive devices? [Back]

Generally, no. Muzzleloading cannons not capable of firing fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 and replicas thereof are antiques and not subject to the provisions of either the GCA or the NFA. [26 U. S. ca. 5845, 27 CFR 179.11]

PART 179--MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS--Table of Contents
 
                         Subpart B--Definitions
 
Sec. 179.11  Meaning of terms.


    ...Antique firearm. Any firearm not designed or redesigned for using
rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and
manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock, flintlock,
percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica thereof,
whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also
any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for
which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is
not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

This topic is now locked as being out topic for this forum.