AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: deepcreekdale on June 03, 2022, 01:15:22 AM
-
Just finished this for a customer from The Rifle Shoppe parts set, I had some trepidation at first as I have heard all sorts of horror stories about this set, stock not inlet correctly, lock in the wrong place etc. I am not a fan of parts sets or kits but this one was a piece of cake. The build is different naturally, for example the barrel is hard to inlet because of the breech screw going straight down you have to lift the barrel straight up each time during the inletting process. The inletting was fine, everything needed final inletting to fit, which is the way it should be. The only problem in the whole project was the sear bar on the lock was about 1/8 too short and the trigger about 1/8 too short as well so had to lengthen them. No big deal. My only criticism is I doubt any Ferguson rifles issued to the troops had such a nice piece of wood for the stock. You need more than a Kibler kit build under your belt but it was no harder than any other pre-inlet kit or parts set. The hardest part was polishing all that metal, especially that bayonet which is a big old thing.
(https://i.ibb.co/T0TgxW7/ferg-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/C9tH3PY)
(https://i.ibb.co/WWnrRKr/ferg-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Fb6Qd7Q)
(https://i.ibb.co/64jmqck/ferg-3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qRTd2Lv)
-
Breech closed
(https://i.ibb.co/ZfJHRyX/ferg-4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JcdxWXt)
(https://i.ibb.co/3kMQj4g/ferg-5.jpg) (https://ibb.co/zN7DBQq)
Breech open
picture sharing (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/2YNkSBt/ferg-6.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HpdHCQz)
-
Very nice! A neat project you did a great job on it.
Rob
-
Cool project.
-
Your customer will be very happy ;D
-
Looks great!! How long did it take to get that order?
-
I just saw one of those a week or so ago. I believe it was a Narraganset arms product. Looked like CaCa compared to your version.
You did a great job on it Dale.
-
Looks great!! How long did it take to get that order?
I bought the kit from a member here, so I didn't have to wait for years for it. I ordered the bayonet directly from TRS, and it came in a surprisingly short time. It's a hit and a miss with them.....
-
So what's the thingus sticking up out of the wood next to the barrel tang?
-
So what's the thingus sticking up out of the wood next to the barrel tang?
It's the pin that holds the rear sling swivel.
-
So what's the thingus sticking up out of the wood next to the barrel tang?
Yep, it is a pin to hold the rear swivel like emmagee said. One of the trickier operations, since the swivel post is mounted at an angle and in order to drill straight through the peg which secures it, requires your tongue to be in just the right position after measuring a few times to get that angle right.
-
Looks great!! How long did it take to get that order?
Thanks for the compliment and all the other ones as well. The customer actually sent me the parts set; I don't know how long he had to wait. There is probably a bit of a wait for these since there is some extra machining needed on the castings for the breech block. I have always had pretty good luck with ordering from TRS. A few things I think that help which might not work for everybody on all projects. For example, say you want a French musket, or a Dutch Fowler. They have several models of each in their catalog. Call and ask which ones might be in stock. Chances are better that one may be in stock or in the process of having the parts cast. And remember, for most if not all of their sets, there is NO other source so patience is a virtue. Second, ordering a single part might take a while. They are not like Track or MLBS with a large inventory, they have literally hundreds of part sets available, it would take millions of dollars to stock all those parts. They do not send an order to the foundry until they have enough parts needed to justify the foundry accepting the order. No foundry is going to cast a single buttplate. i once ordered a dozen miquelet style lock parts sets. Jane said it would be 9 months. They came in 8 months and 21 days. I bet if I had ordered a single one, it would have taken longer.
-
Being too lazy to do my own research, please someone explain the vertical screw breach plug thingy. How is it used? How does it not leak combustion gases?
-
very nice
-
Hi Foresterdj,
One turn of the trigger guard handle lowers the screw plug enough to clear the chamber. You place a round ball in the chamber and then fill the space up behind it with powder, screw the plug back up, prime the pan and fire. The ball rest against a shoulder like a modern barrel chamber and the explosion forces the lead into the rifling like a modern bullet. There is no gas escape except a little from the top of the hole because the threads are tapered and they seal more tightly as you close the breech. There is a lot about Ferguson rifles on the internet but as always much of it is incorrect, hyperbole, and superficial.
dave
-
Not knowing anything about this subject I have to ask. Do the barrels lead up when shooting that bare ball ?
-
Hi Smylee,
Not that I've noticed but I lubricate the balls with beeswax before going out to shoot the rifle. It is no worse than the later breechloaders.
dave
-
Ferguson's great idea was the use of a multiform thread rather than a single thread. Rather than 1 thread with 12 rotations per inch he used multiple threads that each made 1 rotation over the necessary distance to expose the breech. I believe he was the first to use that concept but there is at least 1 French breech-loading flintlock with the same general design but it requires many rotations to expose the breech enough to load.
Too far ahead of its time to be made practically, but super cool and they have American Revolution relevance. Technically they break the forum's rules... ;)
-
Technically, they are illegal for muzzleloading hunts in most states, or muzzleloading competition. That is why I've never had an interest in them.
-
Not knowing anything about this subject I have to ask. Do the barrels lead up when shooting that bare ball ?
My question as well.A dry lead ball thru a rifled barrel can't work for long and then scraping the lead out will be no end of fun.
These marvelous relics were to try and replace the loading thru the muzzle and I imagine that some of these guns were used
as muzzle loaders anyhow once the leading showed up.B.Tyler Henry sounded the death knell for the muzzle loader as a weapon of war by 1865 but it never entirely died out and ws in use as a hunting and target rifle even thru the 20th century when a revival in interest
in them started something that has lasted until THIS minute.The Ferguson was one of a number of attempts to make a fast loading gun
and absurdities like the Ellis I mentioned in an earlier post using superposed loads and a sliding lock was one.Colt's revolving rifle from 1836 was a step forward but were prone to multiple discharges that made a special stance mandatory to safely fire it without injury.
Bob Roller
-
Technically, they are illegal for muzzleloading hunts in most states, or muzzleloading competition. That is why I've never had an interest in them.
i asked a friend of mine who is a retired FWC officer if he would cite someone for using one of these for hunting. (He is on this board, he might want to chip in) He said he would consider it within the spirit of a muzzleloader for hunting purposes. Unlikely most game officers would be familiar enough with them to really call you on it. Besides, it is not a light gun, I would not want to lug it around on a hunt. Probably leave that bayonet behind as well!
-
Bayonet might be handy if hunting grizzlies with it. ::) Might be a necessary attachment as the powder charge is no more than a deer load, imho.
-
The percussion cap made the successful breech loader possible and there was a bunch of them.
That same tiny cap negated all the efforts of the finest London lock makers but they left us with
some of the finest locks made by the finest craftsmen who did their very best to forestall the tiny
caps arrival.Thank you Mr.Manton and others who labored in vain to stop advances in firearms and
the ways to fire them.
Bob Roller
-
If you line the bears up neatly, that bayonet might get you a two-for-one.
They were marvelous rifles for the time, and that 12-thread breech surely took a LOT of engineering. Would be difficult to manage for mass production even in this time. CNC maybe?
Were they accurate enough for hunting? What type of rifling was used, both number of lands/grooves and twist rate?
-
They were marvelous rifles for the time, and that 12-thread breech surely took a LOT of engineering. Would be difficult to manage for mass production even in this time. CNC maybe?
Before I retired from aerospace machining, a very experienced co woker tried to duplicate the threads by thread milling on a CNC Haas, the male thread was perfect, the female thread angle was off. It engage nicely but would never seal correctly.
-
The Rifle Shoppe's parts set/lock, works quite well. The one Taylor build sure did.
It was more than accurate enough for hunting.
(https://i.ibb.co/ftx5Gzp/DSC03951.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mtcwFVq)
(https://i.ibb.co/422ksFF/Taylor-Made10.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
I do not believe that rifles of the colonial period were fired with as tight fitting a ball as is used today. We operate with extremely cheap but superior quality measuring tools, a caliper, well beyond what riflemen had, and we have specific and consistent manufacturer data to turn to for patch and ball size to mathematically fill the gap between ball, bore, and rifling. Likely the Ferguson fired undersized balls, maybe lubed in some way, so leading wasn't as great an issue as we perceive.
Many of the famous long distance shots, like the 300-400 yard indian scout killed from Fort ligonier, even state that the shooter was firing multiple shots before a lucky hit. I think historical rifles were of acceptable accuracy for hunting distances but, considering the dearness of ball and powder on the frontier these ranges were close enough that a looser ball would have been sufficient. And since all the lauding of a rifles capability was as compared to a musket firing an unaimed and undersized ball by someone that didn't usually shoot to kill and we can see the rifle will still retain it's legendary status.
But there are more knowledgeable people here who could better inform me, or (dis)abuse me of my notions.
And mazatrol lathes have had a multi thread option since the 1980's, all you have to do is increase the thread lead with respect to the rpm or pitch and number of threads needed. But circa 1770 that musta been a right pain.
-
Technically, they are illegal for muzzleloading hunts in most states, or muzzleloading competition. That is why I've never had an interest in them.
i asked a friend of mine who is a retired FWC officer if he would cite someone for using one of these for hunting. (He is on this board, he might want to chip in) He said he would consider it within the spirit of a muzzleloader for hunting purposes. Unlikely most game officers would be familiar enough with them to really call you on it. Besides, it is not a light gun, I would not want to lug it around on a hunt. Probably leave that bayonet behind as well!
I agree most game officers would not be aware it is a breechloader. They would have to see you load one before they would think that something is amiss.
However I like that bayonet. it would definitely double as a hunting sword.
-
Hi,
Ferguson was not way ahead of his time. Here is a quote from the beginning of Chapter 3 in Bailey's book "British Military Flintlock Rifles".
"The screwplug design that Patrick Ferguson adopted [not invented] for his breech-loading rifle was by no means an innovation in 1776. The basic idea dates back to at least the last quarter of the 17th century, when it was utilized by Daniel Lagatz of Danzig, and it was produced, in a version extremely close to what Ferguson later used, by French engineer Isaac de la Chaumette in 1700 and 1704. De la Chaumette actually received English patent No. 434 in August 1721 fir this and related mechanisms, and various English gunmakers including Lewis and James Barbar, Joseph Cookson, and James Freeman produced "Ferguson" rifles during the first half of the 18th century, as did Penterman the elder in Utrecht. The fact that Ferguson was allowed a patent can only serve to illustrate the ignorance of those who granted it."
La Chaumette's thread design was the same as Ferguson's requiring only one full turn to expose the chamber and a second to remove the plug. The all metal breech and action used by Chaumette and Cookson, like the turn-off pistols at the time, was superior to Ferguson's design because it did not suffer the fatal weakness of the wooden stock about the breech that plagued the Ferguson. It would have been almost impossible for the British government/gunmaker/tradesmen partnership that constituted the ordnance system to produce sufficient numbers of Fergusons to outfit a large proportion of the British army. The weak links in the chain of tradesmen producing arms were the barrel and lock makers. They were the most skilled and technically proficient workers in that chain and their skills were in demand not just in the arms industry but in a host of precision metal works. They could go where the money was so the gun makers who agreed to make Fergusons would have to pay for the precision work required to make the guns, and pay dearly. It was actually a matter of national security for the British government to keep lock and barrel makers in the firearms industry, particularly during time of peace, because they could work at many different jobs. The original Fergusons cost 4 pounds sterling each at a time when a short land Brown Bess cost 1 pound 12 shillings, almost 1/3 the price. Moreover, the Ferguson's required superfine rifle powder that cost over 7 pounds a barrel compared with 1 pound 5 shillings for a barrel of musket powder. The Ferguson was almost certainly designed to shoot the standard 0.615 carbine ball, however, my Ferguson made from TRS parts, shoots terribly with that round. It requires a larger ball to tighten groups. Ricky Roberts and Bryan Brown demonstrate good success with the carbine ball in their rifles using TRS parts but I cannot with mine. It makes me wonder if there is variance in the manufacture of those barrels and breeches. Finally, with proper lubing of the breech threads and careful loading, I can shoot up to 30 rounds before fouling starts to bind the screw plug. It is easy to quickly clean the plug with water and lube it again but under fighting conditions, there are so many ways you could screw up the loading procedure and bind your breech after just a few shots. Moreover, two turns and your screw plug drops out. That would be a disaster during battle. The Ferguson rifle was in no way ahead of its time. What was ahead of its time for the British army was Patrick Ferguson's effort and ability to get the army to form a dedicated rifle unit, and one using a breech loading rifle.
dave
-
I owned a English breech loader ca. 1670 for a while a few years ago. Half stock, long barrel with a cannon muzzle rifled in 12 bore. Was loaded through the bottom of the barrel by unscrewing a pipe plug and dropping in a ball then filling the powder chamber.
-
I owned a English breech loader ca. 1670 for a while a few years ago. Half stock, long barrel with a cannon muzzle rifled in 12 bore. Was loaded through the bottom of the barrel by unscrewing a pipe plug and dropping in a ball then filling the powder chamber.
And I kick myself about once a month for not getting that one from you !
-
Thanks for the input on the Ferguson Dave, your background rarely disappoints. I'll have to be careful of regurgitating anything i "know" about that gun. Any thoughts on my view on firing of undersized balls historically? Feel free to PM if it seems out of place here.
-
When I built the Ferguson Daryl has illustrated above, I took TRS' advice and bought a .650" ball mould from Ray Rapine. Using pure lead balls from this mould, and a full chamber of 2Fg GOEX behind the ball, the rifle shot perfectly to the sights without any filing at 100 meters. I never did try the flip up leaf rear sight to see where it shot, but I suspect it was for 200 meters.
-
Hi David,
I didn't respond to your question about shooting undersized ball because I don't have a good answer that I can understand myself. All the documentation about the Ferguson indicates it was designed to shoot carbine ball (0.615), which makes sense because why would ordnance not try to standardize ammunition rather than make a gun shooting something completely different. Anyway, the original Ferguson in the Morristown, NJ museum measures 0.607" across the lands and 0.648" across the grooves. My TRS made barrel and action measures about the same across the lands and just 0.640" across the grooves at the muzzle. So a 0.615" ball clearly won't roll down the barrel but it also doesn't fill the grooves unless it expands into the grooves on firing. Recovered balls after shooting clearly show deep marks of the rifling on the ball so it likely is expanding somewhat when fired. However, I get no accuracy with that ammunition. I cannot keep a group within 8-9" from a bench at 50 yards. When I use a 0.648" ball, those groups are under 2.5" and regardless of how many shots fired. Fouling in the barrel and chamber does not compromise accuracy at least when using 3F Swiss powder, which may be the closest to German superfine rifle powder used in the original guns. Leading, even with the larger ball is not an issue and the Ferguson behaves just like any of the later black powder breech loaders. As I wrote previously, Roberts and Brown report very good accuracy with their TRS made Ferguson rifles using the 0615" ball but I cannot. I wonder if perhaps my lead is harder than that used by Roberts and Brown. Dead soft lead might be critical for the bullet to fully expand into the grooves but my lead is soft based on a thumb nail test.
dave
-
Dave,
How about in general? This notion of historical long rifles using undersized ball and patch combos, consistent with the undersized balls used in muskets, was revived in my mind after watching a Townsend video from a few years back. The video features Simeon England and he casually mentions his interpretation of contemporary sources to indicate many, or most, rifles were fired with undersized balls and patches that don't fit the numbers we match today. Would you agree with that impression in any form or is Simeon perhaps seeing limited sources or some observation bias by only noting outliers?
I've been thinking of this more since trying jojoba oil as a lube for it's supposed similarity with sperm whale oil and my experience was pretty poor, good accuracy but loads that needed a mallet from stiff fouling after 1-2 shots.
-
Great looking gun, Deepcreek! ;)
Curtis
-
Being too lazy to do my own research, please someone explain the vertical screw breach plug thingy. How is it used? How does it not leak combustion gases?
Bless you for confessing to the laziness! I get so tired of people whose question sub-text is ‘I can’t be bothered to do a search so please do it for me.’Honesty appreciated.