AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: frontier gander on April 04, 2014, 08:43:08 PM
-
A friend of mine had asked this on another forum but its not very alive over there. I personally don't think the Hawken brothers had conicals in mind when using the 1:48 twist.
So the question:
"As far as I can find out. Most of the Hawken Brothers guns had a 1-48 twist. I have read in more than one place that they did that, because they knew conicals were not far away, and they wanted their customers to be able to shoot them along with the PRB.
Do you think there's any truth in this, and if it isn't. Why did they use a 1-48 twist for just a PRB?"
-
I think it had more to do with the fact that they didn't attempt the long shots we do today, and, that 1 in 48" twists are more economical on powder. They also understood the basic concept that you can kill a bear with a small caliber head shot, but can't kill small deer with a shot through the hams.
Hungry Horse
-
Just wondering what we have to prove they used a 1-48? Also wondering if any other twists were used and if we have some documentation of any.
-
1:48 was in use long before people started playing around with "conicals". The old idea that the rifling had to make one turn in the barrel, then we have rifles in America with "4 foot barrels" and we have the 4 foot twist. Given that the guides often used were not easily changeable it sure did not take long for the "one turn in the barrel" theory to be scrapped. But 1:48 is a very accurate twist for the RB of most calibers, to 54-58 at least so it hung on.
Conicals were not used in hunting rifles in the US, to any extent at any rate and were repeatedly proven to be inferior to a RB of the same weight. Several sources of information, Forsythe, Greener and Baker. Given the problems associated with "naked" conicals they are not practical for field use and ESPECIALLY not for horse back use. AND many picket rifles have gain twists that end in twist closer to 30-36" than 4 ft.
The bullet that became popular in early 19th c America was the cloth patched picket. But its such a PITA to load and get accuracy that its not really useful for hunting.
From posts here and elsewhere and information given by people who have checked original twists the Hawken brothers apparently used 48" for everything.
Dan
-
I'd like to meet the man who could say for certain what the Hawken boys had in mind. He'd be pretty old for sure...about 184 yrs old.
I suspect that what is behind such a declaration is the justification for T/C and other 20th C businesses to market a slug to satisfy the modern hunter who knows nothing about round ball muzzle loading hunting or performance . It's ballsy enough that they usurped the name and attached it to such a product. At some point in the future, someone will also produce a Lada and call it a Lincoln.
Humbly submitted....Taylor
-
Why did they predominantly use 1:48? or 7 groove rifling? or ???
Probably the same reason Rice uses 1:66 with 7 groove while Colerain uses 1:56 with 6 groove and GM uses 1:70 with 8 groove in the same caliber - because it works for them and they all believe their system/profile (pick a term) is "correct" for what they are building.
The "Kephart" Hawken has been described as a "slow twist", somewhat greater than 1:66 (from the description I have read), so either they "sourced" a barrel or were at least capable/willing to use a different twist.
Looking back many of us try and over analyze things - it seems too "simple" if the answer is "just because", we want some scientific method to explain things that "simply were".
-
Other than the Military, when did the "general" population make the switch over to conicals for hunting?
-
I believe it has been mentioned before on this forum that the Hawken's rifling guide still exists and it is 1 in 48". This is a spiral shaft guide, not a sine bar guide. Since 1 in 48" will work for pretty much any caliber and they had a 1 in 48" guide, a better question would be, "Why would anyone expect a Hawken rifle to have any twist except 1 in 48"?"
-
1:48 was in use long before people started playing around with "conicals". The old idea that the rifling had to make one turn in the barrel, then we have rifles in America with "4 foot barrels" and we have the 4 foot twist. Given that the guides often used were not easily changeable it sure did not take long for the "one turn in the barrel" theory to be scrapped. But 1:48 is a very accurate twist for the RB of most calibers, to 54-58 at least so it hung on.
Dan
Going along here on Dan's thought about "One turn in the barrel," I can't imagine the German or Swiss gunsmiths in Europe of the late 17th/ early18th century have a whole bunch of rifling guides to rifle any size barrel to "one turn in the barrel." What I get the impression is that they made the barrels on those rifles to more or less the same length and used only one or maybe two guides that did make one turn in the barrel?
Gus
-
In my opinion the better question would be how deep was the rifling.
TC
-
I have read a description of the Hawken's rifling machine which is (or maybe was) in the possession of the Missouri Historical Society.
Anyhow, it described how the machine was used and how the rifling was cut. Each grove was cut, one pass for each of the seven groves and then a "paper shim" was inserted to raise the cutter and then each grove was again cut in order until the depth reached "10 to 14 papers deep".
Now if there was some reference to the thickness of the "paper shims", I could have provided an answer to your question ???
-
Anyhow, it described how the machine was used and how the rifling was cut. Each grove was cut, one pass for each of the seven groves and then a "paper shim" was inserted to raise the cutter and then each grove was again cut in order until the depth reached "10 to 14 papers deep".
Now if there was some reference to the thickness of the "paper shims", I could have provided an answer to your question ???
I am NO expert, but have been doing some research into the linen paper of the day. This is one of the best descriptions I found of 18th and early 19th century paper – before wood pulp paper became common after the UnCivil War
“The first step in preparing the rags was to sort according to color and quality. The higher grades of paper used only white rags of a higher quality of linen content. This was called "grade one." The smallest and largest sheets of paper were made from this quality of rags and linen. The smallest sheets were used for writing paper and documents. The largest were reserved for atlas printing. Newspapers were printed on "grade two" paper. "Grade three" was reserved for wrapping paper, wallpaper, boards for bonnets, and so forth.”
And
“In order to print on the paper it had to be specially treated. Treatment consisted of dipping each dried sheet of paper into a vat of sizing. Sizing was made from animal parings -- tissue and bits of flesh scraped off the hides -- which were then boiled into a gelatinous liquid. After dipping and shaking the excess sizing off, the sheets were then placed on felts and returned to the screw press. This pressure helped bond the sizing to the paper and removed any excess sizing.”
http://www.historybuff.com/library/ref1690.html
What kinds of paper would the Hawkens used to make shims? I imagine their account books and papers used for correspondence would have been the most expensive Grade 1. For shims I imagine they would have used newspaper Grade 2 or wrapping paper Grade 3? I get the impression that Grade 2 was not as thick as Grade 3, but I have yet to find anyone who mentions how thick the period paper generally was.
Modern Linen paper runs about .007”, but that is probably more uniform and consistent than Grade 1 was in the 18th and 19th centuries? A GUESS is paper they used to make shims from ranged from .008” or .009” to maybe .012”. The different thicknesses would explain why they used between 10 to 14 shims of such paper?
What I DON’T know is how much that paper compressed when forced against the bore to press the rifling cutter deeper.
Sorry, but that’s the best I’ve been able to find so far.
Gus
-
1:48 was in use long before people started playing around with "conicals". The old idea that the rifling had to make one turn in the barrel, then we have rifles in America with "4 foot barrels" and we have the 4 foot twist. Given that the guides often used were not easily changeable it sure did not take long for the "one turn in the barrel" theory to be scrapped. But 1:48 is a very accurate twist for the RB of most calibers, to 54-58 at least so it hung on.
Dan
Going along here on Dan's thought about "One turn in the barrel," I can't imagine the German or Swiss gunsmiths in Europe of the late 17th/ early18th century have a whole bunch of rifling guides to rifle any size barrel to "one turn in the barrel." What I get the impression is that they made the barrels on those rifles to more or less the same length and used only one or maybe two guides that did make one turn in the barrel?
Gus
Neither can I but apparently they did. Also remember the GUNSTOCKER and the BARREL MAKER were different parts of the trade. If you look through some books that give twists its very enlightening.
Also its entirely possible they had more sophisticated rifling machines than were generally found in the colonies.
And not every rifle was rifled one turn in the barrel, but many were. Some were rifled with more than a turn in the barrel length. One turn in the barrel was the belief of many at the time even though many rifles were much slower. The Baker was a slow twist but the British still insisted on making fast twist RB barrels until the end of the ML era. This was one of Forsythe's complaints.
There are rifles in "British Military Flingtlock rifles" with almost any twist one can think up very slow to very fast.
Most of the German rifles used here during the Revolution and the British Pattern 1776 rifles have one turn in the barrel according to Bailey. I don't have the access he did so I can't prove or disprove it. But couple his findings with writings by Forsythe and others and we have pretty good proof that it was at least common.
Dan
-
In my opinion the better question would be how deep was the rifling.
TC
Probably not more than .010-.012. Rifling deeper than this is pointless and may even increase erosion. But they may have been deeper. The only detailed description I know of is in Baird's book and they omit groove depth.
Dan
-
Other than the Military, when did the "general" population make the switch over to conicals for hunting?
If I remember correctly, it was in the early 1970s when TC introduced their famous Hawken rifle and the maxie ball.
Seriously.....I think the general population in that day used what they were use to...that is...a patched round ball. They were cheap, efficient, and they knew how to manage them. I know there were exceptions but you also have to remember that the advancement in firearm technology during this era was in high gear. Just think, a young lad of twenty in 1861 could have been shouldering a flintlock smooth bore musket but a mere forty years later been in the deer woods with his Savage 99 in .303 designed for smokeless.
-
Other than the Military, when did the "general" population make the switch over to conicals for hunting?
They never did that I know of. But there is a lot of ignorance out there.
Dan
-
Seven grooves: They used an odd number of grooves, I have read, so that the opposing land supported the cutter better. If using a wooden cutter head this may be valid.
Dan
-
Here is more of the description of the process from which I took the "10 to 14 papers deep" for the rifling -
The spiral grooves of the rifle guide and the head block were cut in such a way as to make one complete turn in 48”.
When the saw had cut the first groove as deeply as it’s adjustment permitted the guide was withdrawn from the block and inserted again, one groove to the right.
The process was then repeated until seven spiral cuts had been made in the barrel.
The saw was then removed from the lead plug (or cutterhead) and a strip of paper was placed at the bottom of the slot where the saw is seated.
This time the saw stood slightly higher above the surface of the lead. The process was repeated until the grooves in the rifle were 10 to 14 papers deep
----------------------------
I know nothing of the rifling process so can't comment on why they used 7 groove rifling other than to say that their father built his rifles with seven groove rifling, they learned the trade from him and may simply have used it because that's the way they were taught (????)
-
In my opinion the better question would be how deep was the rifling.
TC
The only one I can find my notes on was an S. Hawken marked squirrel rifle made for the local trade in Missouri. Groove depth was .013", .38 caliber.
-
I am not surprised that grove depth was in the .012" range. This being that a RB in 1/48 twist would still be able to engage the rifling well enough to not strip the patch with heavier charges (read hunting charges).
IMO the modern made production fast twist barrels such as the TC 1/48 with what? .004" (I am sure to get a correction here) deep rifling were because modern button rifling could only swage that depth of rifling and not because it was better for round ball shooting. That brought the need for bullets, maxi ball, REAL, etc. which have more engagement surface area with the barrel.
I had Douglas cut a 1" .50 barrel for me with 1/56 twist and .012" rifling that works wonderfuly with PRB.
-
Standing Bear - V-close!
I was in Hal Sharon's shop in Kalispel in the very early summer of 1975. Hal was attempting to develop 'deep groove buttoned' barrels. By that time, we knew the shallow buttoned barrels that TC was putting out (.0015 to .004" deep at that time), were not 'correct' for shooting round balls and were only buttoned to cut costs with their advertising BS of the day covered this shirking on quality, of course - claiming it to be a dual purpose twist.
When Hal's rifling machine was working at pulling the oversized carbide plug through the bore, it sounded almost like a machine-gun and the entire shop shook in it's foundaton- vibrating. I brought one of those barrels home to test, along with a number of cut barrels from Bauska's shop- real ML barrels. Hal's deep buttoned barrel had .008" or .009" rifling and was a .36 cal. & was 15/16"" across the flats to fit the barrel trying stock I'd made in 74.
I could not look at a 60 watt bulb through that barrel - hurt the eyes & give you headache - loose/tight/loose/tight/loose/tight/loose/tight- hundreds of these, from one end to the other caused by the locking, releasing/locking/releasing/locking/releasing of the button as it travelled through the bore - difficult to explain but I can still visualize that barrel's interior and remember the sound. Les said it didn't look very good, but it would shoot - Hmmm. When running a tight patch down the bore - it felt like and almost sounded the machine-gun sound we did as kids playing war - BDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD.
Shooting wise wasn't too bad after I experimented a bit. I ended up using .375" balls and a .020" patch. YES - turned those round balls into round bottomed, flat nosed slugs. I had a 3/16" drill rod blank for a ram rod. I also made quite a chamfer on the muzzle crown to get the drawing of the round balls and patches down right. Normal sized round balls, ie: .350's and a patch shot terribly.
Hall quit trying to make deep button'd barrels I was told, as too many of the barrels exploded in the machine - dangerous. That info came from Lester H. Hakwes who talked on the phone with Les Bauska at that time. (Les Hawkes was friends with Les Bauska and John Buhmiller, both of Kalispel). Les thought it was funny, that Sharon was trying to "Deep Button" a barrel to re-invent and take over the barrel trade with cheap round ball barrels- didn't work.
Even the Pedersoli .58 Kodiak with .008" rifling was an excellent shooter. They guys at our club can attest to that. .004"? - that's what is normal for a .30/06.
-
Some the first 40 caliber barrels that Wolf got while still in NY were the same way, chattered.
The 40 button apparently pulled hard and who ever was doing the barrels did not have a powerful enough machine.
But to put really deep grooves in a barrel with a button is not possible. If nothing else the stresses are incredible and will cause problems in the finished barrel unless it was full annealed before any machining was done.
I suspect that the material they were trying to use was not that uniform and this may have caused variations as the button encounters hard spots in the barrel.
Even a 45 caliber with .004 deep grooves puts and incredible amount of stress into the barrel and blanks with any flaw will fail when buttoned.
The machine Wolf got to button barrels was a huge hydraulic broach. It had the power and if the hydraulics hicuped and button stopped and started it would usually leave the button in the barrel.
Buttoning is a cheap method and to do really good barrels needs a controlled atmosphere oven to anneal the barrels before any machine work is done. So I suspect the Sharon was jousting windmills and finally figured it out.
A guy a block down the street had a Bauska on a Remington, probably 45-70, the lands were flaking away from use low grade steel.
Dan
-
The Hawkens and others didn't have hydraulics or button rifling capability they cut the grooves.
My point being many production modern barrels with fast twist are button rifled so they have shallow grooves. It is not fast twist that makes for less accurate RB shooting (stripping the rifling). it is the combination of fast twist, shallow grooves and larger calibers.
Cut rifled .012 grooves in a 1/48 twist should work well in .50 & .54 up to medium high charges. .36 and Under can probably do well even with shallow rifling.
My .40 have cut .012 grooves and 1/66 twist but would have been fine w 1/48.
-
I will add another note on the original Hawken rifling - been digging through my mountain of files for info that I kinda/sorta remembered.
Anyhow, a good number of years back there was an attempt to verify that the rifling machine at the Missouri Historic Society was in fact the one from the Hawken's shop.
A Dr. Tom Hoops and Clarence Fall (NFI) got permission to move, study and photograph the machine.
They started by making lead plugs from existing barrels to compare to the product the machine would produce.
One of the points of comparison was the bottom of the rifled grooves.
They were noted in both the plugs made from barrels (and they note one barrel in particular was in "near unfired", pristine condition) and the cutters on the machine that the rifle groves were "ROUNDED" on the bottom.
So if this source/examination is accurate, the Hawken's used 7 groove, round bottomed rifling with a right hand twist.
The article also noted that the machine was capable of cutting 7 groove left hand twist which was used by Dimick (they kinda leave that hanging to let you draw your own conclusion there, if any).
-
I think the 1in48" twist is the compromise twist, that will work relatively well in any caliber. I think the early smiths knew this, and sort of standardized on it. most of the more exotic twists developed later in the muzzleloading history.
Hungry Horse
-
Further thoughts. A button rifled barrel 1/66 or 1/70 may not attain high enough MV without stripping to impart a fast enough spin to stabilize a larger ball. Here a gain twist would benefit.
-
I will add another note on the original Hawken rifling - been digging through my mountain of files for info that I kinda/sorta remembered.
Anyhow, a good number of years back there was an attempt to verify that the rifling machine at the Missouri Historic Society was in fact the one from the Hawken's shop.
A Dr. Tom Hoops and Clarence Fall (NFI) got permission to move, study and photograph the machine.
They started by making lead plugs from existing barrels to compare to the product the machine would produce.
One of the points of comparison was the bottom of the rifled grooves.
They were noted in both the plugs made from barrels (and they note one barrel in particular was in "near unfired", pristine condition) and the cutters on the machine that the rifle groves were "ROUNDED" on the bottom.
So if this source/examination is accurate, the Hawken's used 7 groove, round bottomed rifling with a right hand twist.
The article also noted that the machine was capable of cutting 7 groove left hand twist which was used by Dimick (they kinda leave that hanging to let you draw your own conclusion there, if any).
How large was the radius of the cutter? A radius to match the groove diameter is not what people today see as round grooves.
It appears that some were cut with narrow grooves and some fairly wide. Some are "square" from photos. Given the time frame it is unlikely that all Hawken barrels were cut with the same cutter. So it would be virtually impossible to use the cutter as a key to who's rifling guide it was. Best way would be to make sure it was EXACTLY the same twist. But this would be difficult. So the best one could do would be to say that it might be.
But this one is hard to tell and the really good one I have came off an auction site or some such a few years ago so I will not post it.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FCody%2520Guns%2FP1030156-1.jpg&hash=0387e0ba480ae6ddb82867b520092bafd14efa96)
This is the silver mounted rifle made in 1836 at the Cody Museum. Poor photo but the best I could get. Could be a "round groove" but looks fairly "square" to me.
The barrel and the guide might be a 48" twist but this might mean the barrel is 47 1/2" and the guide 48 3/4" but it would be impossible to determine this without putting the barrel in the machine and actually checking. One way would be etting a piece of wood in the cutter head to see if it would exactly follow the grooves in the barrel would be one way but this would require debreeching etc. Something most owners are not going to go for.
Dan
-
Other than the Military, when did the "general" population make the switch over to conicals for hunting?
Seems to me from what I've read (Forsyth - Sellers) - that conicals became widely used for hunting, only with the ctg. gun era in fixed ammo - not in muzzleloaders.
In India, it never came to pass due to the inability of a pure lead bullet (required in ML) to penetrate deeply enough on dangerous game. They were tried, ie; the Enfield with minnie balls and many English guns 'in case complete' had a conical mould, but the soft lead bullets were found poor killers on dangerous game. A hardened round ball which was used in the ML's, not only penetrated more deeply but oft times exited. I assume that is what "Through and Through" means. Conical became popular only in fixed ammo in India only after the ctg. guns were invented & became popular.
The only way to shoot a hardened bullet accurately was in a self contained ctg. There were attempts with winged bullets (Jacobs) but they were mostly for military experiments, not for sportsmen & certainly not in general use.
-
As I am sure you know, Baker's experience with his "devil stopper" when he had a conical made for it was classic. So I will repeat it here.
It got him into such "scrapes" that he abandoned it and went back to the belted ball which "never failed to floor a charging Elephant". "Scrapes" when hunting something like Elephant are not the same as having a hard time finding the Whitetail that can't be easily tracked after the shot.
Elephants have a disconcerting propensity to hold people down with a foot then pull off the arms and legs. Or bash the offender repeatedly against trees or other objects.
I have a friend and fellow Guild member who has told me that ringing barrels on LR MLs is very common if the shooter simply tip the muzzle down when walking to the firing line. On a horse they would unload in a mile or so if carried muzzle down as they would have been at times. Having used a loop over the saddle horn the gun WILL tip muzzle down and will be required on narrow trails in the timber.
But folks want to do what they want to do and have bought into the fallacy that the RB cannot be reliably used on medium or large game.
Dan
-
Yes - Taylor and I were on a ML bear hunt up the Nass valley in BC with a close friend. At that time, we were all shooting "Maxiballs". With freshly loaded rifles, we were headed for the "Theater", a sort of amphitheater-shaped area where we could watch three converging slides for bears, all from the same central spot.
I was looking at some old moose tracks on the ground in front of us and must happened to look over at one of the rifle's muzzles and said - Tommy - look at the muzzle of your rifle. The Maxiball was 1/2 in, 1/2 out of the muzzle. After 'scare' he paper patched them with cigarette paper. His was the TC barrel with only .0015 deep rifling. After that trip, I worked on developing round ball loads for my rifle, then within 3 month's, re-barreled it with a
cut rifled Bauska barrel.
-
Here's my worthless opinion: moose don't care. :o;D
-
Here's my worthless opinion: moose don't care. :o;D
But if the bullet slides off the powder and the barrel is of one of the dismal alloys used by many ML barrel makers in the US one could easily end up short some fingers or a hand or his hunting buddy could catch some frag in his head.
Dan
-
Yes Dan, I forgot about bullets. I tried bullets in the mid eighties and never liked the possibility of the slug sliding off the charge.Switched to round balls and never used slugs again. That TC BigBore( my first ML) shot the bullets pretty darn good though.If my memory serves me correctly, the TC .58 shot @!*% fine with it's 48" twist and patched round balls also.(90gr. 2f,.570rb, .025 patch,IIRC)