AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: Hank01 on January 20, 2023, 04:48:26 PM
-
First off, greetings one and all. I’m new to the community but not new to gun building. I realize this site is dedicated to the American long rifle but so much of its history is traceable to the early smooth bores of England, Germany and France. If this post is site inappropriate I will gladly remove it.
I’ve been studying and building 18th century English style double sporting guns for about three decades. Wrote a book called “The Classic English Double Barrel”, now in its 4th edition. Development of doubles started in London with William Bailes and Benjamin Griffin being two of the earliest known makers. Both produced single barrel fowlers but sometime around 1760 both introduced doubles. Evolution of the double barrel in England was slow. It took nearly 90 years to bring the English double to its highest form of refinement. What’s the point of this post?
The plan is to build a replica William Bailes double. Armed only with photographs and sparse recorded data it’s going to be a total scratch build. So far I have found nothing off the shelf part wise that fits the description. So, we’ll be making barrels, creating some parts by sand casting, crafting other parts by cutting, turning and hand shaping. It’s an enormous if not daunting project probably taking years to complete. Am I nuts? Well, sort of. Just hope I live long enough to finish it.
(https://i.ibb.co/ky6bq4r/bailes-double-bonham-auction.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cvXf26p)
Bailes double pictured above sold at auction October 2019. This is the subject of the project. It’s trimmed in silver, hallmarked 1758 bearing the mark of Jeconiah Ashley as the silversmith. This work is illustrated in “Messrs Griffin & Tow and W. Bailes” (Keith Neal, David Back) Pp 156-8 plates 74a-c. It has swamped barrels of Spanish form joined by a full length top rib. There is no bottom rib. Flat face locks stepped in at the tails have no roller on the frizzen. The stock and metal parts display rococo inspired relief carving and engraving typical of the period. Keith Neal dates this work 1760 commenting that it’s one of Baile’s earliest works and would have been priced at £20. That’s roughly $5,000 USD in today’s market.
Yup, I must be nuts!
Hank
-
Welcome, Hank! Great project. Keep us posted on your design work and fabrication work. Might keep you busy for awhile!
-
Will follow this with great interest..I just hope I live long enough too to see it finished.
Good luck.
Cheers Richard
-
Rich, Richard You can bet there's gonna be plenty updates. Plenty of discussion too. But, being officially retired there should be lots of time for project devotion.
-
This project will be watched by many. Welcome to the site and thanks for posting. :)
-
Hi Hank,
Great project and good luck with it. Good locks the right shape, size, and quality will be a tough obstacle. No commercially made locks (left and right) can fill the bill so you will probably have to make them. Keep us posted.
dave
-
Hi Hank,
Great project and good luck with it. Good locks the right shape, size, and quality will be a tough obstacle. No commercially made locks (left and right) can fill the bill so you will probably have to make them. Keep us posted.
dave
The EXTERNAL parts of the L&R Durs Egg locks offer a good potential after DETAILED polishing.The mechanisms are another set of rules and ARE the lock.I have made several sets but don't want any more lock work from anyone here or in Europe.
Welcome to this forum and good luck with the double gun copy.
Bob Roller
-
$5,000.00 - inexpensive at twice the price for that gun.
Best wishes with your project, Hank & welcome to the forum.
-
Thanks smiley. Hope you keep watching!
Dave, Bob, An appropriate lock is just one of the many details a modern offering does not fulfill. It may be possible to pick and choose parts from various suppliers to build a "frankenflint" that somewhat resembles what we're looking for but no doubt many parts must be fabricated to get exactly what is needed. Right now i'm considering Jim Chambers' gunmaker's flintlock kit as a starting point. Another consideration is a set of Griffin castings (662 right, 683 left) from The Rifle Shoppe. Even these will require considerable modification not to mention the long wait time to get 'em.
Daryl, from what i've uncovered so far, Mr. Bailes built top quality guns at rock bottom pricing. He catered mostly to the elite in and around London. He was not a wealthy man at his passing in 1766.
-
We have barrel blanks! Two 19 bore, two 11 bore, all 36” long.
(https://i.ibb.co/KNdYhpb/barrel-blank-trimmed.jpg) (https://ibb.co/rbYg0RF)
(https://i.ibb.co/LhLd135/barrel-blank-end.jpg) (https://ibb.co/YTzBhxZ)
Plan A was to buy off the shelf barrels. Only one commercial swamped barrel comes close to matching what’s needed for this project. Colerain’s 38” American Fowler has similar dimensions to the Bailes but 5” too long and has only one band. Forget about the rest. The only option is to make ‘em. Plan B: buy blanks and outsource shaping. (Eric Kettenburg, I hope you’re reading this) I’ve contacted Rice, Colerain, Oregon Barrel Company, Buckeye Barrels etc, etc, along with several individual makers and local machine shops to see if they could make the barrels. No takers yet. Still waiting for an answer from one. Plan C: In the meantime i’m preparing to do the work myself. How? We have in the works a design for a "barrel mill". It's planned to be a three step operation. First step is turning the round part out the muzzle to include the flare. Second step is turning the barrel bands, third step is milling the tapered octagon. This machine will be custom built in my shop using repurposed and off the shelf components. Sound simple enough?
The machine itself consists of two separable components: A simple lathe to turn barrels and bands; a vertical mill to shape and taper the flats. Bed for the lathe is reinforced t-slot aluminum. Rest and tool post, face plate, chuck and tail stock being off the shelf items. Power for the lathe comes from a surplus ½ hp motor. A router designed for milling 80% lowers will be the detachable vertical mill. Shaping a barrel on this contrivance will be slow by some standards but helluva lot faster than the alternative. I can’t even imagine trying to grind, file and shape everything by hand, let alone two of ‘em. The beauty of this beast lies in the fact that it can take either round stock or a straight octagon blank and turn it into a swamped barrel. Need to hurry up and get it built.
Plan D: buy some BIG files.
Hank
-
Some of the mechanisms I have seen are flimsy and reproducing them by casting is a gamble.The Twiggs I made on the Davis externals had a big upgrade in the mechanism using a 3 screw bridle with the sear on an axle (or pin).IF you are going to make your own internal parts I recommend 1144 "stressproof" for the tumblers.It machines like leaded steel and hardens in oil.Fly and sear from 0-1 and main and sear springs plus frizzen springs can be easy to work 1075 annealed and screws from 12L14. The quality of the locks will determine the usefulness of the gun.
Bob Roller
-
Thanks for the tips Bob. An as cast lock kit can be a real pita as many can attest. Definitely not the best way to go. I've had good luck with 1095 (blue tempered steel) for frizzen springs but i agree with 1075 for a main spring. Never worked with 1144. I've always used 1020 because of its case hardening properties. Maybe it's time to try 1144?
-
For over 50 years I used 1144 for tumblers and no reported problems.I don't think I used 1018 for anything except lock plates for a variety of caplocks. The cast internal parts I have seen using antiques for masters looked insufficient to me and once shaped and cleaned they would not have been anything I would even think of using.At this point in time I am making nothing in the shop and when the weather warms up to where I need no heat I might make some more double set triggers and use what materials I have and then quit completely.
Bob Roller
-
With respect to making octagon to round barrels...
Years ago I machined a quantity of barrels on a 16" South Bend.
Tapers were turned by offsetting the tail center.
I milled the flats as follows...
Took a piece of channel iron. Made and mounted a couple of V-blocks, one at each end. Took a piece of octagon barrel, turned a portion of it round, to just slide into the barrel bores. Drilled out the bore of this piece, and threaded the octagonal end. Bored a taper in the round end. Machined a piece with an enlarged taper on one end, matching the internal taper of the piece that fit the barrel and the other end threaded to screw into the octagonal end of the barrel insert. Slit the round end. The result was an expanding internal collet. Slip it into a barrel, turn the inner piece, and the round end would expand to grip the barrel firmly. The protruding octagon portion would engage one of the V-blocks, indexing the barrel, the round part of the barrel would rest in the other V-block. The barrel would be clamped in place.
The assembly replaced the lathe compound. It would be set at a slight angle to the spindle axis of the lathe. An end mill was held in the chuck. Power cross feed was used to pass the barrel across the end mill, the carriage being locked in place. When one flat was milled, the barrel was rotated 1/8th, and another flat machined. Keep going until all 8 flats were cut. This rig worked very well, didn't take long to mill the tapered octagon section of the barrels.
-
...The cast internal parts I have seen using antiques for masters looked insufficient to me and once shaped and cleaned they would not have been anything I would even think of using...
Spot on Bob. Parts finishing up too small and/or too thin is the primary disadvantage of those kits. So much time can be spent making everything fit/work properly. No doubt that time to do that is better spent making the parts from scratch.
...The assembly replaced the lathe compound. It would be set at a slight angle to the spindle axis of the lathe. An end mill was held in the chuck. Power cross feed was used to pass the barrel across the end mill, the carriage being locked in place. When one flat was milled, the barrel was rotated 1/8th, and another flat machined. Keep going until all 8 flats were cut. This rig worked very well, didn't take long to mill the tapered octagon section of the barrels...
Great ideas! Failed to realize flats can be milled using the cross feed. Similar ideas though with replacing the compound. Where you have the jig, our plan puts the router. Blank is fixed between spindle and tail stock, router advanced using the carriage. Angle to get the taper is adjusted through the tail stock. Make one pass, index the blank and repeat. I like the idea of using V blocks and internal collet. Not to mention using a scrap barrel to index the blank. Pretty slick! This causes me to rethink the "barrel mill" plan. Mind if i borrow some of your ideas?
Hank
-
Hank,
Would it be possible for you to show a drawing of the barrel profile you want. I’m confused as to the issue of profiling it in a home shop. I build custom single shot cartridge guns from scratch and profile my own barrels from blanks in my home shop. Tapered octagon on a mill is not hard, tapered octagon transitioning to tapered round is also not hard. Just takes time and is all that is needed is a vertical mill, a medium sized lathe and tooling to hold the barrel. I have also tapered and flared a short barrel on the lathe. I basically free handed the the flare by stepping the barrel size I wanted. This is an interesting project because a sxs muzzleloading rifle or fowler has interested me for sometime so I’m hoping you get something going.
Bob
-
Bob, not sure if this image is clear enough to see the detail but here goes:
(https://i.ibb.co/d0WhKNq/SB19-REV1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WWxTKrw)
Issue i have is total lack of machine tools. I have a drill press and that's it. Hence the need to make a machine to do the shaping. Other than that i see no problem either, sans the thought of doing it all by hand. Not sure if it will show up in the drawing above but the barrels used by Mr. Bailes has two bands, the second band is heavily worked and ornately engraved. Pic below shows the detail:
(https://i.ibb.co/GMC4mf1/band2.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
Pretty cool huh?
Hank
-
...The assembly replaced the lathe compound. It would be set at a slight angle to the spindle axis of the lathe. An end mill was held in the chuck. Power cross feed was used to pass the barrel across the end mill, the carriage being locked in place. When one flat was milled, the barrel was rotated 1/8th, and another flat machined. Keep going until all 8 flats were cut. This rig worked very well, didn't take long to mill the tapered octagon section of the barrels...
Great ideas! Failed to realize flats can be milled using the cross feed. Similar ideas though with replacing the compound. Where you have the jig, our plan puts the router. Blank is fixed between spindle and tail stock, router advanced using the carriage. Angle to get the taper is adjusted through the tail stock. Make one pass, index the blank and repeat. I like the idea of using V blocks and internal collet. Not to mention using a scrap barrel to index the blank. Pretty slick! This causes me to rethink the "barrel mill" plan. Mind if i borrow some of your ideas?
Hank
[/quote]
The barrels I was making were straight taper, octagon and round. Made setup easy. The round portion was already tapered. The section that would become octagon was 1 3/16" blank diameter. I could set up a dial indicator referencing on the round portion, and track the compound back and forth adjusting as necessary until the indictor was reading zero, then start the milling. The 16" South Bend had lots of compound travel. The internal collet + V-block indexing system worked really well.
-
Hank,
The diagram is hard to see. But, from what I think I’m seeing is, a straight taper octagon section 12 inches long starting at the breech with .010 taper per inch. The bands are smaller (.805) than the octagon flat at the front end of the 12 inches (.925). I can’t tell what the breech end size is but the math would sat 1.045. The octagon should be machined first in my opinion, it can be run right out over the band area. This should be done in a mill and both barrels in the same setup. Then move to the lathe. The round section is roughly 19.25 inches long and straight, no taper, the 14.25 inches in front of the band. At 5 inches from the muzzle it starts and flares to .865 or .012 per inch at the muzzle. In a lathe it would be just a matter of supporting the barrel so all the issue turning long stuff isn’t an issue. I would probably turn a shoulder between the end of the octagon and the end of the band, then push the shoulder against the chuck jaw, only dealing 20 inches then. The last feature turned would be the bands. The toughest portion being that 5 inch flare but even that’s not that daunting. Unless I’m missing something any machinist could do this without hardly thinking about it, it would just take quite a bit of time. I am curious where the barrel blanks came from and are the bores finished and polished and what steel, 4140 possibly. Just so we aren’t next door to each other, and don’t know it, what area of the country are you in? I’m Iowa.
Bob
-
You got the picture Bob. Breech width across the flats is 1.040, 0.920 at first band to give 0.010/inch octagon taper. Uploaded drawing says 1.039/0.925, which is incorrect (obsolete drawing). Round barrel length from second band to muzzle is roughly 19 ¼. 0.805 OD nominal extends from second band to roughly 14 ¼ where the flare begins. Flare expands from this point 0.012/inch from 0.805 nominal to 0.865 at the muzzle. I fail to see where you missed anything. In short, you nailed it. I agree with you by saying any skilled machinist should have no problem cranking out these barrels. Pic below shows band detail for additional reference:
(https://i.ibb.co/1Mn8L36/BAND-DETAIL.jpg) (https://ibb.co/r3t4mgs)
Blanks came from Core Metals. As for material, (saying this may be akin to smacking a hornet nest with a stick on a hot summer day) it’s 1020 DOM stress relieved tubing. I’ve read most of the comments here and elsewhere concerning the evils of using DOM tubing as barrel material. Most beliefs are unfounded. Having ran countless FEM models under the worst case scenario, DOM tubing is safe to use. But, not unlike any barrel material for that matter, is subject to catastrophic failure by poor design, loading error or deliberate use over and above rated design capability. There probably will be much discussion about this.
Are we neighbors? Sorta. I live in Ohio.
Hank
-
I would tend to agree with the hornets nest comment! And, have to admit I would tend to agree. Probably because I don’t know anything about the strength of DOM and, for a project this size and complexity, I would use a known material. On the other hand, there will be .195 wall thickness at the breech, still .150 at 12 inch and .090 past the bands. The pressures past 8 inches drop dramatically in shotguns. I measure sxs barrels often for integrity and safety and those numbers easily would rate good for black powder or low pressure modern powders. I own and shoot a damascus barreled gun that is 140 years old and measure at the minimum .022 9 inches from the muzzle and have no fear shooting it.
Back to the barrels. Thinking about this after my last reply, I have not run the numbers but I would assume they would work out with the barrels touching at the muzzle with the octagon flats held tight together. Actually they would probably be more than just tight but would need machined flats so they can be soldered together there. Not having any experience in joining shotgun barrel but having read somewhere that at the muzzle the bores should have the same bore center to center dimension as the breech or slightly less. This would seem incorrect, but I understand barrels done this way will converge properly when patterned.
Machining steel is tough on light machines. I have 2 friend with a Chinese bench mill and neither can machine steel with any kind of ease. They work aluminum ok but neither tries much steel anymore. You might be better off spending on an old Bridgeport or clone and a metal lathe rather than making something that may not work in the end. A South Bend heavy 10 would do this project well. I say the heavy 10 because it has a 1 3/8 inch spindle hole you would need and can be a bench top if you look around. Most of these machine are 3 phase but there are ways around that at a reasonable cost. By setting yourself up this way you could machine all the parts on this gun yourself.
Bob
-
Hanko1, welcome to forum. You are not to crazy, I am in the planning stages of a double flint side by side rifle, so welcome to the club.
Jim
-
I would tend to agree with the hornets nest comment! And, have to admit I would tend to agree. Probably because I don’t know anything about the strength of DOM and, for a project this size and complexity, I would use a known material. On the other hand, there will be .195 wall thickness at the breech, still .150 at 12 inch and .090 past the bands. The pressures past 8 inches drop dramatically in shotguns. I measure sxs barrels often for integrity and safety and those numbers easily would rate good for black powder or low pressure modern powders. I own and shoot a damascus barreled gun that is 140 years old and measure at the minimum .022 9 inches from the muzzle and have no fear shooting it....
Bingo! Most modern steel, regardless of how it's formed or made, far exceeds the physical and mechanical properties of barrel steel used 200 or more years ago including Damascus. Project barrels at hand are designed for 10000 PSI working pressure. A heavy smooth bore charge develops somewhat less than half of that at the breech. Design data says only 0.080 thickness is needed to satisfy working pressure requirement. An extra 0.010 was added to the thinnest part of the barrel to improve the safety factor while still maintaining barrel shape and form. Burst pressure using 1020 steel at the breech is 21913 PSI while at 14", thinnest part of the barrel, burst pressure is 12,890 PSI. I have no reservation using what we have for barrels. I use old Damascus barrels for mid to late 18th century double reproductions. Once properly proof tested i have no reservation shooting them, some barrels being as thin as 0.020" at the muzzle.
As for joining the barrels some additional work will be needed to get them regulated, that is getting a convergent point at roughly 25 yards. This takes trial and error, about a 1/2 pound of powder and shot and several dozen wads. CAD says a few thousandths need to come off the sides at the muzzle end to make this happen. Breech end must be adjusted accordingly. It's tedious process but totally doable.
It sure would be nice to have a fancy lathe capable of doing all of the barrel machine work. I'm just a poor farmer that happens to build double barrel front loaders. In the meantime we'll continue development on the "barrel mill".
Hank
-
Hanko1, welcome to forum. You are not to crazy, I am in the planning stages of a double flint side by side rifle, so welcome to the club.
Jim
Thanks Jim. Best of luck with your double rifle. If i can be of any help i'll gladly try. Just give a shout.
Hank
-
Hank,
To bad your not closer, I’d definitely help out. Have help several friend with barrel work but I require them to to either run the machine, help running it or at least watch the process if I think that’s all there capable of.
I know a few years ago there were damascus blanks floating around, wonder if anything is still out there?
Bob
-
Bob,
Dyson had some of those stub twist blanks but at a horrendous price.
-
Hank,
To bad your not closer, I’d definitely help out. Have help several friend with barrel work but I require them to to either run the machine, help running it or at least watch the process if I think that’s all there capable of.
I know a few years ago there were damascus blanks floating around, wonder if anything is still out there?
Bob
Thanks for the offer Bob. Yes, you can still get Damascus blanks. They're priced at roughly $430 US plus shipping from the UK. Here's the link:
https://www.peterdyson.co.uk/acatalog/ORIGINAL_DAMASCUS_BARRELS.html
These barrels could work up into a fine barrel set for a double flint reproduction dating late 18th to early 19th century if they have the right pattern. Some have a lump on the side for a lock rail. These would be fine for percussion double or very late era flint double. Any would be appropriate for a breech loader.
Hank
-
Hank,
Thanks for the link to the barrels, I’m sure they are the same ones I remember. Very interesting, I figured those barrels would have been gone long ago. Price is really not bad considering they are damascus, after all a common, nothing special, modern barrel blank for a single shot rifle is $260 and is all you get is a black 1.200 inch tube with rifling in the middle. Might be fun to build a rifle with a damascus barrel but I already have three completely, scratch build single shots going now, one waiting and two customs too build on original action. So it would be awhile before that could happen. But, after some research I may buy a barrel, if nothing else just to have. Might need to pick your brain for future project.
Bob
-
Happy to help anyway i can Bob.
Hank
-
Been working on stock design of the Bailes repro. I have two full length side view photos to work from. One is a brass trimmed 12 bore c 1760, the other a silver trimmed 19 bore dated 1764. A method used by scale model makers is attempted to derive primary stock dimensions. This method relies on knowing at least one dimension of the subject being studied and a drawing or photograph. I’ve successfully used this method to build scale model airplanes with a high level of accuracy but will it work for this repro?
(https://i.ibb.co/FqgDKXs/H1097-L185185682-original.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5xBR6kY)
Pictured above is the Bailes 12 bore c 1760. Barrel length recorded as 32 5/8”, trigger pull length as 13 9/16”. This photo was loaded into the CAD program, reference lines drawn and measurements taken from the reference lines.
(https://i.ibb.co/bbs87Qj/BAILES-STOCK1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/7kn6bjx)
19.809” is measured from breech to muzzle in the copy of the photo shown above. Actual barrel length is 33 5/8”. Converting to decimal, 33.625”/19.809” = 1.6974”. To check accuracy, a measurement is taken from center of the butt to center of the front trigger in the photo. It measures 7.991”. Actual trigger pull length is 13 9/16”. Again converting to decimal, 13.5625”/7.991” = 1.6972”. Averaging the two values gives a conversion factor of 1.6973. So, 1” measured on the photo equals 1.6973” actual length. Checking this against known data gives 19.809(1.6973) = 33.6218” barrel length; 7.991(1.6973) = 13.5631” LOP. Both are within 0.005” accuracy so we’ll go with the 1.6973 conversion factor.
From the raw data we find stock dimensions rounded to the nearest tenth:
1.7” drop at comb;
2.4” drop at heel;
5.2” butt height;
13.6” trigger pull length
5.0” groove length;
1.4” wrist diameter;
1.9” top of wrist @ breech to forearm bottom;
11.7” forearm length;
26.8” stock length;
3 degrees pitch positive;
48.8” overall length.
CAD generated drawing of this stock:
(https://i.ibb.co/8b1J3KB/BAILES-STOCK.jpg) (https://ibb.co/f9jbR1S)
Same method is applied to the 19 bore c 1764 using barrel length:
(Photo copyright Royal Armouries, Leeds UK used with permission under research license.)
(https://i.ibb.co/jHprGZ4/B-TOWER-STOCK-DIMS.jpg) (https://ibb.co/M9XCp5N)
Known barrel length is 39” so 39/6.556 = 5.9487 conversion factor. Stock dimensions from the raw data rounded to the nearest tenth:
2.4” drop at comb;
4.2” drop at heel;
5.0” butt height
14.0” trigger pull length;
4.0” groove length;
1.4” wrist diameter;
1.8” top of wrist @ breech to forearm bottom;
10.6” forearm length;
26.3” stock length;
9 degrees pitch positive;
54.8” overall length.
CAD generated drawing of this stock:
(https://i.ibb.co/YfNy1ks/B-TOWER-STOCK.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gtrPfTK)
Several major differences exist between the two, drop and shape of the butt most notable. May be bore specific or may be customer specific? Anyone here own a period related original English single fowler? Do these numbers compare with an original single? Obviously there’s many single barrel characteristics in these early doubles but i’m wondering how close these interpolated values come to the real thing? The goal is be as accurate as possible.
Hank
-
I've tried the same thing with Qcad and pictures of longrifles. I was told by several here in ALR that I could not trust my measurents ,due to unavoidable distortions in photos.
Do you correct for distortions?
Heres a link to the post I wrote about it: https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=59896.msg599780#msg599780
Best regards
Rolf
-
Very cool. Thanks for “showing your work” as my math teachers used to say. When I read the part about averaging the two ratios with the difference being .001 of an inch, I had to wonder how small a difference the human eye (to be specific my poor eyes) can detect. Somehow I think this will pass the test!
-
I've tried the same thing with Qcad and pictures of longrifles. I was told by several here in ALR that I could not trust my measurents ,due to unavoidable distortions in photos.
Do you correct for distortions?
Heres a link to the post I wrote about it: https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=59896.msg599780#msg599780
Best regards
Rolf
Great post on using Qcad Rolf. Distortion can be an issue but for how CAD is used here not so much. I wouldn't send picture generated DXF or IGES data to a machine. Too inaccurate. But for generating raw data to build an accurate model it works great. That's how we use it and those measurements can be trusted.
Very cool. Thanks for “showing your work” as my math teachers used to say. When I read the part about averaging the two ratios with the difference being .001 of an inch, I had to wonder how small a difference the human eye (to be specific my poor eyes) can detect. Somehow I think this will pass the test!
You're welcome David. I've often wondered the same. Anymore i put my glasses on just to see what i'm saying. I certainly hope this project does pass the test. In fact i'm counting on it.
Hank
-
Several questions popped into view while studying the stock of the two Bailes doubles pictured above. Well, the answer to all lie tucked away in the tutorial section:
Understanding the British Fowler Part 2 Locks and Stocks
https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=48844.0
Thank you smart dog for sharing that vital information. Chart below shows how close the Bailes stock data matches data gathered by Dave from his two fowlers:
(https://i.ibb.co/xm3t6BN/GUN-STOCK-COMPARISON.jpg) (https://ibb.co/LQvX1c3)
Pretty dang close wouldn’t you say? Is it a statistically significant sample size? No but i’m totally confident with the data. We can use it to build a fairly accurate reproduction.
What’s most interesting about the two Bailes pictured above is the amount of positive pitch. At 9 degrees (Bailes 1764) pitch positive and 39” barrels, when shouldered properly, the line of sight will fall nearly 6” at the muzzle. The muzzle must be raised to compensate causing the butt to shift position with only the heel in shoulder contact. This creates a pressure point. The total amount of recoil would be felt at this pressure point when fired. Not a pleasant experience. Also, with that amount of pitch positive there is a tendency for pronounced downward muzzle jump. Recovery time would limit the opportunity for a quick follow up shot. As my ‘ole Pappy would say “That gun kicks like a mule and just as stubborn”.
But, these are two of the earliest known double fowlers created in England. Mr. Bailes was a pioneer, an innovator. He, along with Benjamin Griffin, laid the foundation for Henry Nock, Durs Egg, the brothers Manton and many others to build upon.
Hank
-
Hank, I'm really enjoying this thread and your meticulous approach to the project. I don't have anything to contribute, as your knowledge far surpasses mine. Just my compliments and admiration for your sharing this adventure with us.
Best regards,
Carl
-
Thanks Carl. Nice to know it's being enjoyed. I'm exploring new territory with this project and will soon be seen just how little i really know.
Hank
-
Started the lock study. Below is pictured the subject of this repro. It’s silver trimmed, hallmarked 1768 as Jeconiah Ashley silversmith.
(https://i.ibb.co/BsJ4xSP/RT-LOCK.png) (https://ibb.co/PCyTnfY)
Initial impression: This is a high quality lock, only visible screws being cross bolt at the nose and bridle just behind the hammer. Through hole for mainspring retaining pin visible under frizzen spring. Lock plate proper measures 5.7” x 1”. Gracefully shaped hammer is 3.2” long and centered on the tumbler shaft. Top of the lower jaw has a peculiar radius. Top jaw is quite thin, jaw screw is ornately shaped. Arc of the hammer throw is 1.7”, which would place the tip of the flint almost at the top of the pan at the end of its downward stroke. Frizzen measures 1.7” tall, length 1.2”. There is no roller but notice how it’s shaped at the spring. Tail end of the stop appears to be engraved to represent the head of a cobra or serpent. Radius of the frizzen face is somewhat shallow, much more so than contemporary offerings. Of interest is noting height of the frizzen is the same as the arc length of the hammer throw and the peculiar radius of the lower jaw matches the hammer throw arc. Coincidence or this an ingeniously designed lock? Crappy looking drawing below shows rough geometry:
(https://i.ibb.co/0CHT3hw/full-cock.jpg) (https://ibb.co/3pg2HBJ)
Next let’s take a look at the Bailes brass trimmed 12 bore:
(https://i.ibb.co/jr9S55s/H1097-L185185659-original.jpg) (https://ibb.co/LZD3PPH)
Definitely of lesser quality in appearance. Hammer mounted off center on the tumbler shaft, plain features on the frizzen and spring, shape of the hammer not as graceful as the first example. There is no roller on the frizzen. Let’s have a look at one more: (photo copyright Royal Armouries, Leeds UK used with permission under research license)
(https://i.ibb.co/wLbzRk9/16721.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Db6RtJx)
This 1764 example is silver trimmed. Lock appears to be of similar quality to the first example. Frizzen bridle shaped differently, less fancy frizzen and spring but the frizzen has a roller. Pan shape is similar to the first and frizzen face appears to have a more pronounced radius than the first. Jaw screw shaped similar. On this example the frizzen spring on the left is somewhat shorter than the right to clear the cross bolt. Rounded hammers look out of place. Some argue they are not original to the gun.
What are your thoughts on these three locks? I have never seen a lock of this period and style up close and in person so i’m clueless as to how the internals look. Anyone have pics to share?
Hank
-
I have been following this thread with much interest as I started a SXS flint project a while ago and stalled on it. After inspecting several sets of original Damascus barrels and finding none of them worthy I opted to use some 16 bore Belgium suppository barrels that were not Damascus. These barrels were in new condition, never mounted on a gun and never chambered. I have two sets that are both choked full and full. I was going to either ream out the chokes in one set or shorten them to have a two barrel set. And then I thought why not a three barrel set? I sent those barrels to B Hoyt and had him make me a pair of .62 caliber rifled barrels in the same profiles to interchange with the 16 bore barrels. I then made a couple of sets of correct breech plugs as shown in Brockway's books. I also made other parts and acquired a couple of wide stock blanks. The project stalled when I attempted to source ribs and join the two rifled barrels. Maybe this thread will get me to complete this long overdue project...LK
(https://i.ibb.co/vqdqxbh/053.jpg) (https://ibb.co/1QXQf3M)
(https://i.ibb.co/nfZ6f8j/055.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5vtGvxL)
-
Interchangeable barrels -dang! That will be one sweet double. Looks like you're on the right track with the breech plugs. Which style you planning on using, Nock or Manton? Hope this doesn't come across as a shameless plug but my book addresses crafting both in complete detail. This is page 51 of the breech plug chapter:
(https://i.ibb.co/gdb420F/book-p51-b-plug.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hcxY6G1)
Click on the web link if you would like to know more about the book. There is a 20 page preview there to download.
Feel free to give a shout if you want to "chew the fat" over your project. Willing to help any way i can. Let's see if we can get you going again.
Hank
-
Hank, My plugs look closer to the Nock style, but a little different, I can't follow instructions any way. Where is that link to your book?...LK
-
Hank, My plugs look closer to the Nock style, but a little different, I can't follow instructions any way. Where is that link to your book?...LK
LK, you can make the plugs you have into either one. Only difference between the two styles is a tapered, stepped in recess for the Manton. Web link is the globe icon just the left.
Hank
-
Got most of the Bailes lock detail worked out. Sorta. I think. Going with a three screw bridle and use the third screw as a tumbler stop to lessen hammer stop stress at the end of the stroke. While doing the layout and running simulations a problem surfaced if some of the angles “ain’t just quite right” as my ‘ole Pappy would say. On the high end the tumbler will hit the bridle first keeping the hammer from full stroke. On the low end the hammer stop will hit the lockplate first keeping the tumbler stop from doing it’s job. But, that’s why files were invented i suppose. Drawing below shows everything at rest:
(https://i.ibb.co/DW3mmWp/BAILES-LOCK-REST.jpg) (https://ibb.co/XLm66L8)
Half cock:
(https://i.ibb.co/QdsBQp1/BAILES-LOCK-HALF-CK.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Hdmv4Bk)
Full cock:
(https://i.ibb.co/9c6DDxR/BAILES-LOCK-FULL-CK.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6rzMMK6)
Several thoughts come to mind, first is lose the weird looking top jaw screw. EDIT:< fixed that> Second is the location of the sear screw. EDIT:<fixed that> On the original it appears to be on the same centerline as the tumbler shaft or pretty close to it. To move the location up requires changing the as drawn sear design, adding distance between the screw and sear leg. Adding distance, imo, adds trigger creep making a less crisp release. Third is the potential speed of this lock and tendency to eat flint. Given the size (mass) of the hammer and 1.7” throw it’s going to take more time for it to get up to speed, again imo. How massive must the mainspring be to give faster lock speed? With a heavy mainspring there will be considerably more stress on the flint possibly turning it into a flint eater. Not in the sense of a Manton V pan but wear will be accelerated, again imo. Everything fits and runs in simulation but there’s still plenty of details to work out.
Opinions?
Hank
-
There's lots of problems I see with this. I would suggest getting your hands on a good period lock, or better yet a complete fowling piece to study. A next best alternative would be some castings pulled from originals (including locks). You could also purchase one of our round face English locks and this will put you in a good direction. Best of luck.
Jim
-
I have built several SXS flintlocks. I started with damascus breechloading barrels and commercial locks. Unfortunately, I didn't keep one for myself. ::) Now I have the itchies for another. I think around 20 bore. Remembering how frustrating they are to build, and the incredible amount of time they took, and the fact that my time is worth &50/hr I have decided I'll buy an antique British SXS that is in good shape instead. It will be far cheaper that way. :P
-
There's lots of problems I see with this. I would suggest getting your hands on a good period lock, or better yet a complete fowling piece to study. A next best alternative would be some castings pulled from originals (including locks). You could also purchase one of our round face English locks and this will put you in a good direction. Best of luck.
Jim
Thanks for the feedback Jim. Yep, i agree there's lotsa problems up there. Checked out your locks (and kits) a while back. All excellent work. While kicking around thoughts about this Bailes lock i wondered how the working parts of your lock would fit this lock plate. Do you offer just the internals? And perhaps in left hand too?
Having an original example to work from would be ideal. Realistically i don't see that happening any time soon. In the meantime we'll keep kicking this around. Might break a toe or shatter a window but one way or another we'll make it happen.
Hank
-
I have built several SXS flintlocks. I started with damascus breechloading barrels and commercial locks. Unfortunately, I didn't keep one for myself. ::) Now I have the itchies for another. I think around 20 bore. Remembering how frustrating they are to build, and the incredible amount of time they took, and the fact that my time is worth &50/hr I have decided I'll buy an antique British SXS that is in good shape instead. It will be far cheaper that way. :P
Forget making one. You ain’t got enough time. ☠️
-
I have built several SXS flintlocks. I started with damascus breechloading barrels and commercial locks. Unfortunately, I didn't keep one for myself. ::) Now I have the itchies for another. I think around 20 bore. Remembering how frustrating they are to build, and the incredible amount of time they took, and the fact that my time is worth &50/hr I have decided I'll buy an antique British SXS that is in good shape instead. It will be far cheaper that way. :P
Forget making one. You ain’t got enough time. ☠️
That's a fact. I ain't real speedy anymore. :P
-
I have built several SXS flintlocks. I started with damascus breechloading barrels and commercial locks. Unfortunately, I didn't keep one for myself. ::) Now I have the itchies for another. I think around 20 bore. Remembering how frustrating they are to build, and the incredible amount of time they took, and the fact that my time is worth &50/hr I have decided I'll buy an antique British SXS that is in good shape instead. It will be far cheaper that way. :P
Forget making one. You ain’t got enough time. ☠️
That's a fact. I ain't real speedy anymore. :P
My get up and go has got up and gone and I miss it the most from dusk until dawn. ;D ;D ;D ;D.(Don't know the author)
Using the rear bridle screw as a brake is a bad idea.It will bend or break and reproducing the mechanisms of most antique flintlocks by casting will produce a bunch of undersize parts.Just after I joined this forum I made 14 Twigg flintlocks based on the Davis external parts and only 10 were planned but customers furnished externals for 4 more.I hope you can find someone with lock MAKING experience and get this interesting project going and a good conclusion obtained.The 14 Twiggs had a mechanism with the bridle firmly anchored by 3 screws going thru "posts" and the sear was on an axle.
Bob Roller
-
Thanks for the feedback Bob. I agree using a screw as a stop is a bad idea. The bridle as drawn up there also anchors to the plate on posts. I'll get more pics/sketches posted to better show what's being considered. Pic uploader thing on here seems to be broken so i'll get 'em posted when it's working again.
02/02/2023
It's working. This is the plan for the bridle:
(https://i.ibb.co/yNs26Cw/l-n-r-bridle.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PrCkcy7)
Hank
-
Lock study finished, parts drawn and dimensioned. Got material specified. All that’s left to do is buy some steel and build ‘em. The Bailes lock under study is a work of art. Never before have i seen or examined a lock exhibiting proportion and style as this 1764 example. The hammer is perfect in form with no irregularities. Each radius blends flawlessly into the next to create, quite possibly, the most graceful hammer ever used on a flint fired lock. Drawing below illustrates this point:
(https://i.ibb.co/C51d7jp/HAMMER.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0jDNM0p)
Same holds true for the frizzen with its flowing lines and upswept tail of the stop. All in all these will be impressive locks when finished. Here’s how they will look:
(https://i.ibb.co/NFkrqm1/ASSEMBLED-LOCK.jpg) (https://ibb.co/D16YF8G)
Internal parts may or may not be indicative of the original. They were designed using spare lock parts for reference and scaled to match the rest of the lock. This is what we have:
(https://i.ibb.co/wJpgrst/BAILES-SEAR-TMBLR-BRIDLE.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xmzL8HZ)
And the lock plate proper:
(https://i.ibb.co/JzJJksg/BAILES-LPLATE-Y-PAN.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fCww0xL)
Should only take an hour or so to make everything once we have the raw material. Then again maybe i’m just plain nuts.
Hank
-
As mentioned before, if your goal is to make a believable recreation of an 18th century fowling piece you need to get at least parts in your hand to study. Working from pictures is not alone going to work. Though your drawings capture some of what is present on the original piece there are a lot of problems or discrepancies.
If you're content to make something that looks somewhat like an original piece that would convince a person with little knowledge of original work, then your approach is just fine.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but just some advice. I know this project is an enormous amount of work and some advice from someone who has gone down these paths may help.
All the best,
Jim
-
"...Though your drawings capture some of what is present on the original piece there are a lot of problems or discrepancies..."
Jim, your input and feedback is appreciated and i thank you for it. Care to elaborate on what you see wrong up there?
Hank
-
Gonna switch gears -time to get the "barrel mill" going. When finished this machine will turn any round or hex blank into a swamped barrel. It also doubles as a standard lathe with variable speed drive, 48" bed and 8" swing. Head stock is open just as an "oil country lathe" to accept a blank of any length. Overall concept:
(https://i.ibb.co/YN5f7gS/BARREL-MILL.jpg) (https://ibb.co/D1BwDdF)
Have some parts already ordered, going to scrap yard tomorrow to find more stuff for it.
I'm having a blast with this. This project is pure fun!
Hank
-
Just WHAT can be scrounged from a scrap yard for making locks? I have made pairs of locks from the L&R Mantons and made my own mechanisms but that isn't cheap.Call McMaster-Carr and they will sell 1144 and 1075 in small quantities and the sears should be 0-1.
George Killen used to get flat spring steel from cars in the form of hood supp0rts and he annealed it in his coal stove in cold weather.
Most of it was Unknownium or other mystery metals and was a booger to work with.Look up McMaster on you computer and you should find all you need there for lock making.
Bob Roller
-
"...Just WHAT can be scrounged from a scrap yard for making locks?..."
Going to look for stuff to build the barrel mill. But, one never knows what will turn up when digging through the bins. We use a lot of unknownium here on the farm for patch work and odd repairs. It might even be good for making swinging targets.
Hank
-
Hi Hank,
As someone who routinely does tasks that others would call a "waste of time", "too much work", "couldn't pay me enough to do it" and so forth, I applaud you for this project. Your locks look like accurate renditions of the locks on the Bailes gun and as such and considering the time of the piece, don't represent the fully evolved English flintlocks of the 1790s and later. So we should not expect them to function as well as those later locks.
Bailes did not make the locks, the lock forger, lock filer, and lock polisher did. They represent close to state of the art during the 1760s when there was a transition away from round faced locks to flat faced locks on guns of quality. In this case, the lock maker has a particular problem to overcome. The locks need to be small but also wide enough to handle the large breeching of the barrels. Hence, the odd shape of the feather spring. The top leaf of the spring is steeply angled upward because the plate is wide. It is not optimum but a compromise given the requirements of the lock. I urge you also to consider a taller stud or tab on the end of the mainspring so the upper leaf sits even lower on the plate below the bolster. I would hesitate to use any L&R mainspring design as a model. Your deep bolster, based I assume on a modern lock, may not be how the original locks were made. You can achieve the same geometry by having a narrower bolster and taller stud on the mainspring. Also I urge you to shape the hook on the mainspring such that the end sits a little way up the foot of the tumbler when at rest and slides fully into the corner (instep) of the tumbler when at full cock. That will give the lock maximum mechanical advantage sans a tumbler stirrup. The photos below show Wogdon pistol locks. The maker had to solve a problem similar to yours in that these are very small locks but the barrels they are fitted to are fairly large at the breech. In the first photo note the tall stud on the main spring.
(https://i.ibb.co/0GGtHNk/lock-inside-3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gRRVk1G)
In this second photo, note the position of the hook on the tumbler foot at rest.
(https://i.ibb.co/CPrT0gr/lock-inside-4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/tLdWCgd)
Here it is at full cock. Also note the shape of the end of the hook. It is not just rounded over, rather it is spoon shaped such that the angle of the bottom sliding on the tumbler is perfectly matched to the angle of the foot
(https://i.ibb.co/xj9Pqkb/lock-inside-5.jpg) (https://ibb.co/r68T2jh)
These are "state of the art" for the period 1770-1779, not much later than your Bailes gun.
dave
-
Wow! Dave, you have provided the missing puzzle pieces. Thank you for providing this vital information. A deep bolster as drawn above is an attempt to circumvent the spring interference issue at the breech so common with modern lock offerings. As for the spring hook at the tumbler, having never seen the inside of a lock of this period, i simply guessed at how it should look/function. Now that i can see the internals of an actual period lock the issues with the current design become quite obvious. Your suggestions and necessary changes will be incorporated into the next lock revision. We just may get it right after all. Thanks again!
Hank
-
I am rootin' for you Hank. Good luck.
dave
-
This is the subject of the project. It’s trimmed in silver, hallmarked 1758 bearing the mark of Jeconiah Ashley as the silversmith.
You should check out the latest Journal of the Arms and Armour Society. Leslie Southwick had an excellent article on the London silver marks. The JA mark which has long been attributed to Ashley is almost certainly wrong. It's John Allen. If I remember correctly, Ashley was a "plate worker" rather than a "small worker". Allen's company probably produced about 90% of the London silver for gun mounts, it continued under his apprentice and after him, his apprentice, in business nearly 100 years at the same address and specializing in gun and sword mountings.
-
I am rootin' for you Hank. Good luck.
dave
Thanks Dave.
"...You should check out the latest Journal of the Arms and Armour Society. Leslie Southwick had an excellent article on the London silver marks..."
In which volume/part can this be found? Tried looking it up without success. Did find a complete listing of all volumes through the Royal Armouries web site but no way to access any of them.
Hank
-
Friend,
I don't mean to toss a dog #$@* in your yard, here, but are you sure that this gun had the type of patent breeches (Nock, etc.) you have shown in your posts thus far? I enlarged you first photo to 400% and I could not see where the patent breech butts up against the breech end of the barrel tube. They might have French breech plugs. The French style breech is much simpler to make!
On my 1740 French double build I used a pair of smooth-bore barrel that Bobby Hoyt made up for me. He refused to make the barrel walls as thin as I wanted (using 12L14 free machining stock) so my gun is too heavy. But the breeching was simple and very easy to do with minimal machining assets - bench-top drill press and bench-top mini-lathe.
Building a double-gun is a challenge! But without a challenge or two life is boring.
Good Luck!
JMC
-
Toss all you want Long John. We have lots of shovels. Your right, breeching of the Bailes double is what Henry Wilkinson defined as "...a solid lump of iron screwed into the barrel to close one end, and the touch-hole was drilled through the side of the barrel above it." (Engines of War Section 3, pp 80-81) Yes, they are easy to make. I've made dozens using nothing more than threaded rod, a hacksaw, a dill press and a file.
Breech plug diagram posted above is in response to a sorta off topic reply regarding a late era English double barrel repro project.
So, your 1740 French and the Bailes c 1760 both would be proper with breeching as described by Henry Wilkinson. I'm sure you already know this but breech methods changed, at least in England, after Henry Nock's patent of 1787. To see a very early double repro with Nock or Manton style breech plugs would be pure blasphemy. Makes me shudder at the thought.
I always welcome a challenge and this project is the biggest double build challenge ever. I'm having a blast with it!
Hank
-
Decades ago I made a similar tumbler and mainspring then about 1970 I switched to the linked mainspring altogether.I may still have a profile gauge for that style of tumbler. All the Ketlands made by Chet Shoults were like the picture but minus all the extra filing on the bridle.I kept the design for a long time and then made the later,linked mechanism and on every lock I made afterward until 2019 when I dropped out of lock making.
Bob Roller
-
"...I may still have a profile gauge for that style of tumbler..."
Interesting info Bob. Would you happen to have a photo or sketch of the gauge? I'd like to see it.
Hank
-
(https://i.ibb.co/Z8rfrJ3/MILL-BED-PARTS.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4TLFLfc)
(https://i.ibb.co/pdKb48K/RAIL-PARTS.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HqPBGsP)
So what does a picture of scrap iron and a box of junk have to do with building a William Bailes double barrel replica? Everything! The scrap iron is the bed for the “barrel mill” and that box of junk is the linear rail, ball screw and blocks for mounting the tools. This machine will shape the barrels for the Bailes double. Tomorrow we weld.
Hank
-
(https://i.ibb.co/TY11W9z/MILL-BED.jpg) (https://ibb.co/sbCCW8L)
Scrap iron is now the machine bed. Filling the center with non-shrinking grout will increase rigidity and resistance to vibration. T slot aluminum was originally planned for the bed but quickly dropped after doing some stress analysis. It's just too flimsy. Next we build a heavy wood bench for the machine to sit on.
Hank
-
(https://i.ibb.co/bvtdK8R/xfeed.jpg) (https://ibb.co/t2RCJWP)
(https://i.ibb.co/vPyCDdw/xfeed1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jM09Hw6)
We're making progress -bench is built, machine bed in position on the bench. Rails, carriage slide and cross feed in position on the bed. Next we get that stuff bolted and welded together, install the carriage feed and build the flat taper jig. Making a running change here and there is slowing down progress but we'll have a better machine in the end. Yes, i'm chompin at the bit here wanting to turn those blanks into barrels now!
Hank
-
(https://i.ibb.co/cbNcs2h/IMG-6157.jpg) (https://ibb.co/B4gVYT2)
(https://i.ibb.co/VCVTWx8/IMG-6158.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FY6zbXt)
Still making progress. Rails installed, ball screw for carriage feed and cross slide mounted. Tool post mounting plate installed. Cross feed and tool post mounting plate both had to be flattened as each had considerable lateral warpage. Took a long time to get everything parallel, square and flat before mounting the rails and ball screws into position. Ball screw for carriage feed feels almost too tight after adjusting the slide bearings. It may go bad with use so we’ll keep a spare on hand just in case. Next we build the drive and tool post and get some hand wheels on the feed screws. Putting off building the taper jig for now. Need to get the lathe up and running first to make parts for it. Hoping to make barrels for the Bailes double within the next few weeks.
Hank
-
Looking good!!!!
-
Looking good!!!!
Thanks Ed. I'ts taking way too long to pull everything together imo. Patience is not one of my stronger traits.
(https://i.ibb.co/tQRwRFw/old-grinder.jpg) (https://ibb.co/XjHfHMf)
Are you wondering what a pic of an old grinder has to do with building a William Bailes double replica? Too bad the motor is fried otherwise i’d be tempted to use it to shape the barrels. I’m sure it’s been done before but i’m not at all comfortable using a grinder in that fashion. Instead, the right angle drive was salvaged and used on the lathe carriage feed:
(https://i.ibb.co/Jcqfhg3/old-grinder-new-crank.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fX9hcLD)
After stripping the motor armature from its shaft, an adapter was made using the grinder disk nut, a short piece of black iron pipe, short sections of 5/8” and 1/4” steel rod and a flexible drive coupling. This adapter connects the carriage feed screw to the grinder shaft. A hand wheel salvaged from a junk horizontal band saw attaches directly to the motor shaft. Everything mounts on a bracket welded to the lathe base. Don’t know the grinder head gear ratio but one revolution of the hand wheel moves the carriage 0.0625”. Pretty slow, perhaps too slow, but i’m sure it will do just fine for turning and tapering a barrel blank.
Hank
-
Machine bed is filled with non shrinking grout, carriage and cross feed ready for action. Drive box built, bearings in place. Have yet to install driveshaft, backing plate and chuck. Tail stock slide ready for the tail stock. A few more hours work and we'll have an operational metal lathe.
(https://i.ibb.co/6RSmypm/bearing-plate.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wNqRdbR)
Looks like better lighting is needed. That's a pitiful looking pic.
Hank
-
Machine bed is leveled, slide rails leveled to the bed, carriage and cross slide leveled to the rails. Drive shaft installed, aligned, centered and leveled to the bed and cross slide. Preliminary motor and pulley layout finished.
(https://i.ibb.co/4p2NvkR/drive.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FzX7Zp4)
Had a helluva time getting one of the bearings into position on the shaft. They’re press fit so after heating the bearings and freezing the shaft we proceeded to press a bearing onto the shaft. It got stuck about halfway into position. No amount of pressure forced it to budge. For fear of ruining the shaft, the bearing was cut free ruining the bearing. So what happened to cause the bearing get stuck? The shaft had a high spot in it making it not a true cylinder. Probably should have checked it first but hey, who knew? The race from the ruined bearing was salvaged and used as a slip gage to draw file the high spot down to size.
(https://i.ibb.co/bXd6d9Q/shaft-shave.jpg) (https://ibb.co/yqsNsjd)
After heating another bearing and refreezing the shaft everything went according to plan.
Next we weld the drive box to the bed, mount the motor, install the pulleys and drive belts and weld the chuck backing plate to the shaft. After that comes wiring and setting up the speed controller. Installing the chuck will wrap up the head stock fabrication. When that’s finished we’ll have an operational lathe.
Hank
-
I think the easy part will be making the gun. :o
-
Mike, believe it or not, this machine is coming together easier than some of the doubles i’ve built. The last double wasn’t quite as cooperative. But, it was my fault as an issue with the barrels dismissed as insignificant turned out to be highly significant. Because of this, breeching had to be remade and the stock recarved in several areas to fix the problem. It turned out good and is a fine shooter regardless of the set back.
The biggest problem so far is the amount of time it’s taking to get this machine built. This, i suppose, should be viewed as a lesson in patience?
Hank
-
It's amazing the old timers got those guns made with just hand tools.....
-
It's amazing the old timers got those guns made with just hand tools.....
It is amazing. Makes my arms and back ache just thinking about it and a bit ashamed for not sticking to the "old way". I have often wondered if makers three centuries past had the technology we have today if it would be adopted or shunned as the "devils work"? I lean toward the former. In The Ain I Akbari, Abul Fazl Allami (court historian of the Mughal emperor Akbar of India) recorded the making of matchlock barrels circa 1570. Their method and technique was advanced for that era. Henry Wilkinson (Henry Nock's grandson) in Engines of War describes some of what it took to make a gun in the 18th century. Again, many methods and techniques were advanced for the era. It seems that as better technology became available, gun makers were quick to adopt the new technology. So, looking at it this way, it makes me somewhat less ashamed to rely on machine tools to simplify an otherwise tedious and exhausting task.
Then again maybe i'm just lazy.
Hank
-
Guys n gals, a new lathe is about to be born.
(https://i.ibb.co/b5qvnfJ/FRONT-VIEW1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jkBwFpR)
All head stock parts installed, motor and VFD mounted and wired, belt pulleys aligned.
(https://i.ibb.co/Vv91yjF/TECO-VFD.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qRjSGyH)
Teco L510 VFD takes 220V split phase AC and converts it to 3 phase AC to run the 2 HP 3 phase 3600 RPM induction motor. Speed range is adjustable on the fly from 0 to motor max RPM using the knob below the display. The VFD is programmed and all set to make some shavings.
Below is a barrel blank for the Bailes replica clamped in the chuck jaws:
(https://i.ibb.co/LrhJcRG/RUNOUT.jpg) (https://ibb.co/XDk3KLw)
Dial indicator shows 0.010” runout one inch from the chuck jaws. This gives nearly 1/8” total runout full blank length. Not acceptable. But, by adjusting the drive bearings and drive shaft alignment, the runout will be eliminated. To make a consistently tapered barrel there must be no runout. None.
What’s next? First get rid of the runout then build the tail stock. After that comes the jig to mill the tapered barrel flats and finally make the taper jig to turn the round taper. We’re almost there. We’ll soon be making barrels.
Hank
-
So I got to ask. Why build the lathe? Cant buy one that will work for this long of stock? Or just extra thrifty and like challenges?
Forgive me if I ask a really dumb question, I have no experience with a metal lathe.
Thanks
Fleener
-
So I got to ask. Why build the lathe?...
Good question -I've thought that myself several times. Maybe i'm just plain nuts?
Seriously though, economy is one factor. Cost of a new lathe sized to the task starts at 5 grand not including freight charges, taxes and tooling. Forget about buying a used machine. Versatility is another factor. This machine is designed to also function as a horizontal mill. Most store bought lathes can't do that. Necessity is yet another factor. I've needed a lathe for quite some time now so why not build one (at a fraction of the new store bought cost) to include the capability of making octagon to round swamped barrels? Can't build a Bailes double reproduction without 'em.
Then there's the wow factor. Wow as in how the $#*! am i going pull this off? Complexity is nothing to fear IMO and this is the most complex gun building project, at least for me, ever. But, i welcome the challenge and the hundreds of details involved. It's definitely knocked the dust off of some rarely used engineering skills.
Hank
-
Hank, thanks for the reply.
So what is your background? Obviously, you have some machining and building skills that most people do not have.
Fleener
-
Well at least I know what the heck he's been making now! ;D
-
Hank, I’m curious what your measuring at .010? Run out of the chuck, or the alignment of the spindle center line, to the bed?
Also, are you grinding the barrel flats or using an end mill? How are you indexing?
When I turn a tapered barrel I do it between centers with a dog driving the barrel. The off set is done with the tail stock set at half the desired taper.
Bob
-
Neat project, I wonder how the rigidity is going to be, however. Are you using it as a manual, or CNC?
-
...So what is your background?...
30+ combined years as a process quality engineer, engineering manager and general manager. Oh, and the college thing too. >yawn<
Well at least I know what the heck he's been making now! ;D
One helluva paper weight eh?
Hank, I’m curious what your measuring at .010?...
Spindle run out. It's tilted up and leans starboard. Chuck runs +/- 0.0025". Not bad but not as true as i'd like to see. We'll get the spindle lined up first then get the chuck closer to zero. We'll cut the flats with an end mill using a positive lock index to rotate the blank 45 degrees at each pass. Round taper is turned between centers using a taper jig to guide the cross feed. Thought about doing the taper with the tail stock but with the jig, once it's set up, it can stay in place and won't have to fiddle with the tail stock at every setup and/or change over.
Neat project, I wonder how the rigidity is going to be, however. Are you using it as a manual, or CNC?
The machine itself is rock solid but don't know yet how much deflection will come from the rails. Won't know for sure until we get into some heavy turning. It's strictly manual.
Thanks for watching. Keep those cards and letters coming!
Hank
-
If making guns were that complicated for me I would have quit before I started. ;)
-
Hank,
after the spindle is aligned and corrected, what steps are you going to try to improve the run out of the chuck?
improvements to the back plate.. mounting alignments.. internal grinding of jaws to true tolerances???
Just curious.
Respect Always
Metalshaper/Jonathan
-
If making guns were that complicated for me I would have quit before I started. ;)
And this comes from a man that works with buckets of molten metal. :D
...after the spindle is aligned and corrected, what steps are you going to try to improve the run out of the chuck?...
Jonathan, i find it simpler to diagnose the issue in two steps: First check the back plate after removing the chuck. It must be dead center and machined perfectly perpendicular to the spindle. The holes for the chuck mounting bolts (bolt pattern) must be centered to the spindle center line. If the plate is warped or off center then if not fixable it must be replaced. An off kilter bolt pattern can be fixed if not too far off by offsetting each hole a tad. Make 'em egg shaped in other words to allow some "wiggle room" to bring the chuck into better alignment. That was the case here. The bolt pattern of the back plate was off just enough to cause the chuck to sit off center to spindle center line. By reworking the bolt pattern the run out was reduced to an acceptable level. The second step, if the back plate is determined a-ok, involves thorough inspection of the chuck. This is best accomplished using a CMM. Luckily we didn't have to do that.
And now (drum roll please) I'm happy to announce a lathe is born. Date and time of birth: March 30, 2023, 2:05 PM. Birth weight: 750 pounds. Give or take a few pounds. Length: 62 inches. Place of birth: United States of America.
Got the spindle set true and the chuck adjusted to give +/- 0.0015” run out. Bearing tolerance and chuck precision stack up to 0.001”. Looks like that’s as good as it will get without installing high precision bearings and chuck.
Eager to try it out, a short length of schedule 80 black iron pipe was clamped in the chuck, tooling adjusted and the drive powered up. The machine ran incredibly smooth up to 2000 RPM. Harmonic vibration set in above that indicating an unbalanced spindle. We’ll have to work on that later.
(https://i.ibb.co/CBxKf13/1st-turn-cut-view.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8MFgHKL)
Made several light passes along the pipe to get a feel for the rigidity of the carriage, cross feed and tool post. Aggressive cuts gave considerable chatter, some of it due to the crappy cutters in the tool post. The majority is caused by deflection of the carriage feed, the ball screw to be specific. Was not pleased with the ball screw when first installed. We’ll have to replace it.
Cut a few rings into the pipe to see how it does with making bands. It did ok. Turned a tapered flare into the end of the pipe. That did ok too. As you can see in the pic below, there will be no problem keeping the barrel wall concentric to the bore:
(https://i.ibb.co/mtCsX9Q/1st-turn-conc.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xGSvf1V)
This will be even better with the addition of the tail stock to turn a blank on center.
All in all i’m satisfied with the machine so far. Except for the ball screw and spindle balance. Here’s the test piece compared to the drawing of the Bailes barrel:
(https://i.ibb.co/2g20mzk/1st-turn.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xJvKPn7)
It doesn’t look anything like the drawing but it’s not supposed to. It’s a piece of black iron pipe used to test the new lathe. And guess what? It's a working lathe.
Hank
-
Hank,
thanks for addressing my question! I was thinking back plate and bolt positions? but I'm mostly a self taught machinist, so I was hoping my
thinking was somewhere in the ballpark. Appreciate your experience and allowing us to follow along..
Respect Always
Jonathan
-
Grinding the jaws of a 4 jaw chuck to true it up??I always used the adjustments offered by a 4 law chuck and an indicator on the piece being turned assuming it was round to begin with.A 3 jaw chuck can be trued with a grinder and a set up that is usable.
Bob Roller
-
You're welcome Jonathan. Mr. Roller brings up a good point: An independent four jaw chuck has the built in ability to negate run out through separate adjustment of each jaw. This, obviously, can't be done with a three jaw or self centering four jaw chuck. This is where the need to have an accurately aligned spindle and back plate comes in.
Thanks Bob!
Hank
-
Hank and Bob,
noticed my mistake when I reread my note.. ::) figured at this point someone was gonna point out the faux pas.
I know the difference, just couldn't get my thoughts straight. symptoms of the lingering long covid I guess?
Respectfully
Jonathan
-
Hank, Here is my octagon machining fixture setup on my mill, side milling. The barrel blank needs to be very rigid to eliminate chatter. The tail stock is offset to half the total taper I’m looking for.
Bob
(https://i.ibb.co/556rZ9w/D04-FA9-F6-190-E-4-AEC-BD3-C-1-DA0-DAE9-A37-C.jpg) (https://ibb.co/p3xfqP5)
-
Hank, When turning a barrel, chatter is not your friend and a real issue. I use both a follow rest and a steady rest. The follow can only be used for straight cuts. The steady is used for tapers. Are you building a steady, at least, into your design?
Another photo of a half octagon barrel machining.
A couple of turning the same barrel to a tapered round. Both steady and follow rests being used. The barrel blank is 1.20 inch diameter and still chatter is a continuous issue.
Bob
(https://i.ibb.co/C8VDbTg/4284154-F-6-B0-C-41-F2-A4-FE-D321604-B6571.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qjmVNPK)
(https://i.ibb.co/hW0b6mv/64716146-4598-4-D3-B-BF0-B-BA9-B4-F1-FB759.jpg) (https://ibb.co/T8y6fg5)
(https://i.ibb.co/0JyWGkk/40-A1-FC2-E-11-ED-49-C0-B6-ED-01-C363-BAB88-D.jpg) (https://ibb.co/vz4rjbb)
-
Bobs, in the last photo I assume you are cutting a taper and using the steady, but I’m having a hard time figuring out what is going on. Are you making a bbl.?Would appreciate it if you could explain it. When you are machining an swamped octagon or do you take say three different sections of straight tapered cuts then blend the joins by draw filing?
I thought that Hank was making a machine that would allow for following a swamped profile that the cross slide would follow but I’m not sure.
Thanks Richard
P.S. Bobw, have you had a chance to try a high helix angle end mill on a barrel? I was wonder if that type end mill would reduce chatter.
-
flatsguide, I do not cut swamped barrels, straight tapered octagon only. Yes, this is the same barrel as shown in the fixture machining the octagon, the lathe is running in the last picture. This barrel is for a custom built single shot rifle, built from castings, and is quite small in diameter. These pictures were just for showing the steady and follow rests. (I just figured out how to do pictures here) I like using my quick change tooling with insert style tips but have found they just don’t work machining long slim barrels. I can’t get close enough to the follow rest with the quick change, so I go old school with the lantern style holder using a very sharp brazed carbide tool, as shown in the second picture. In the last picture I believe I am stepping the barrel down to size with short straight sections. I will then start the tapering. No matter what method used to machine a long tube, the part needs good support or chatter will be introduced. When milling the flats I use a 6 flute carbide end mill, side milling. My setup is very rigid and as long as I do my part and set everything correctly I get no chatter.
Below is a picture of a 13 inch, 54 cal. barrel for a fantasy build I did a couple years ago. Tapered and flared and a turned muzzle. And yes, I did have chatter issues, even on this short barrel.
Bob
(https://i.ibb.co/c6MVpqc/92-A3426-E-9-B66-455-F-898-F-70-B098-E52036.jpg) (https://ibb.co/2vmHLJ7)
-
...noticed my mistake when I reread my note.. ::)
No worries Jonathan. You're fine. That's why we're here -open discussion and exchange of thoughts and ideas.
...I thought that Hank was making a machine that would allow for following a swamped profile that the cross slide would follow...
Spot on Richard. Cross feed is disconnected from the slide so it can follow a taper jig. Concept is similar to a pantograph.
Hank, When turning a barrel, chatter is not your friend and a real issue...
Yup. Chatter is not a friend nor is it welcome when it comes to visit. While choice of tool can contribute to chatter, work piece rigidity is a prime factor IMO. After all, chatter is nothing more than the result of vibration when either the tool vibrates against the work piece or vice versa? Your set up appears quite robust, not prone to chatter. It's a good looking set up; it's easy to see by keeping a reasonable depth of cut and adequate coolant flow a barrel of quality can be produced with minimum chatter.
Another cause of chatter biggie, IMO, is the condition of the carriage and cross slide feed. Obviously, a worn/defective feed screw and/or bearing creates slop -a sloppy carriage and/or cross feed is not an accurate system and highly prone to chatter. That's what we're dealing with. There's just enough slop in the carriage feed ball screw to create serious chatter with a more aggressive cut. It must be replaced. We still have a usable machine, it will just take longer to do the job.
...Are you building a steady, at least, into your design?...
There is no plan for a steady rest. It'l be in the way when taper turning. But, we will need a spider as nearly half of the barrel blank is on the opposite side of the chuck in the head stock when taper turning.
Hank
-
So what about the lathe tail stock? An old bench top drill press was pulled out of the machine “boneyard” to salvage its head stock. It’s a heavy, well made cast iron unit:
(https://i.ibb.co/fpT83gR/t-stock.jpg) (https://ibb.co/G2rsZ6w)
Chuck is junk (we have a new one ordered) but the quill and spindle are in excellent shape. It has bearings rated at 3100 RPM, which is more than capable of handling lathe operating RPM. They’re solid and show negligible indicated run out. It will make a good, heavy tail stock. Just not sure how to get it mounted on the slide as we’ll need some degree of adjustability. We’ll get it figured out. Eventually.
Hank
-
JB Weld!
-
If your existing ballscrew uses a 2 piece nut you can grind the shim between and tighten the ballnut, I don't remember seeing a machine tool ballscrew that didn't have a two piece nut. Lead screws are different animals. Go SLOW, a couple thousandths of backlash in the nut will come out with a few passes of a good stone on the shim, and you can only shim it back out when it gets too tight in half thousandth increments. If your shim is thick enough a set of gauge blocks will help you determine how much to take off the shim in one adjustment. Leave 2 or 3 tenths (.0002-.0003") backlash in the ballnut, it will destroy itself right quick if it's too tight. Hope this helps.
-
JB Weld!
And duck tape
...Lead screws are different animals...
Thanks for the great advice! What we have is a ball screw bearing issue. It's junk. This is what we have:
(https://i.ibb.co/F6kSyNJ/lead-screw.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
In retrospect I'd been far better off to follow my instinct and fit it with a rack and pinion carriage feed and half nut with a lead screw. But no, thought i'd save a few $ and go with just a ball screw feed. Not the best decision. May decide to retrofit the machine with a rack and pinion drive. We'll see how the repair pans out first.
The drill press head is now an official lathe tail stock. Popped a new chuck on the spindle, figured a way to get it mounted to the slide then got it lined up and centered to the chuck and lathe spindle. This video shows the machine running in test mode with a Bailes 19 bore barrel blank clamped between centers:<EDIT> If you don't see the captions, turn on the CC mode in the video viewer. </EDIT>
https://youtu.be/a6rV3lpI1is (https://youtu.be/a6rV3lpI1is)
We have a lathe!
Hank
-
You may recall as previously posted there was a problem with spindle balance and carriage feed ball screw. Both now fixed and coolant system installed. After practicing on some black iron pipe we did some heavy turning on a Bailes barrel blank:
(https://i.ibb.co/Yc62tz1/end-turn.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QPZ962T)
Machined surface finish isn't perfect but it’s as good as it can get with a carbide SCMT insert. Maybe? We have some HSS cutters coming. We’re not at the peak of the learning curve just yet. This machine likes to run fast, much faster than what i’m used to on a purely manual machine. It quickly lets you know if things need to speed up. How? Chatter. Horrible chatter that shakes the whole machine. By keeping the spindle RPM up and with a rather quick carriage feed rate it runs quite well. Better than expected actually once we figured out how to run it.
One thing noticed when experimenting with black iron pipe was the amount of deflection when turning a full length piece and the blessed chatter it produced as the cutter moved further away from the chuck or tail stock. A steady rest was (is) not part of the plan. Rather, a follow rest was designed and fabricated to mount just ahead of the cutting tool as part of the carriage. Maybe it should be called a lead rest? It shows promise but much more testing needs done before calling it a success. Still lots to discover about this machine but at least we’re making progress with it.
Hank
-
Hank, I alway turn barrels cutting toward the chuck, from right to left. Any barrel blank that I have started with are rough and not true to the bore in any way. That being said, if you are trying to use a follow rest in front of the cutter it does not have a true surface to run on. Normally you can start cutting on the right end without chatter for a few inches which give a true round surface for the follow rest to follow. Anytime chatter happens you get either a larger diameter or an elliptical surface or most likely both. It will be tough to get a true round, none elliptical barrel, somewhat true to the bore, using a rest running in front of the cutter.
I have never had any luck using insert style tooling, it takes too much pressure to get it cutting. I use very sharp brazed carbide tools. I have not used high speed steel, but I’m sure it will work, although I would watch closely for wear. I also run the tool perpendicular to the barrel. Once everything is setup correctly, or as good as I can get it, I might still get some chatter, usually toward the center of the length of the cut. This normally a very small amount, and believe it or not, I just lay a piece of wood, with light pressure or grab it with my hand on the machined surface, to stop it. But, I don’t run extremely high speeds while turning a barrel.
Been interesting watching this thread and do hope you get things working.
Bob
-
Why do you feel the need for breech plugs that are 1 1/4" long when 1/2" long plugs work so well?
-
Hank, I alway turn barrels cutting toward the chuck, from right to left. Any barrel blank that I have started with are rough and not true to the bore in any way. That being said, if you are trying to use a follow rest in front of the cutter it does not have a true surface to run on. Normally you can start cutting on the right end without chatter for a few inches which give a true round surface for the follow rest to follow. Anytime chatter happens you get either a larger diameter or an elliptical surface or most likely both. It will be tough to get a true round, none elliptical barrel, somewhat true to the bore, using a rest running in front of the cutter...
Bob, what you're saying makes perfect sense and i have no reason to disagree. The rest, as designed, no doubt defies convention but it should work. At least in my weird way of thinking. In concept it is not intended to act as a full contact “guide” but rather act as a “catch” to reduce or negate flex at mid point of the work piece. Three tests using different set up methods gave mixed results.
>EDIT< I deleted two paragraphs that tried to explain why this thing should work as designed. Why? After going back over what those paragraphs said i realized the whole idea is whacked making the operation far more difficult than it really is. We’ll be much better off using it as a true follow rest. >/EDIT<
A big thank you Bob for providing the opportunity to see the error of my ways!
BTW, carbide insert tools are junk IMO. They may be ok for a little hobby size lathe but for heavy turning they're just not up to the task. HSS tools will be here in a couple days. Then we'll do some turning.
Why do you feel the need for breech plugs that are 1 1/4" long when 1/2" long plugs work so well?
True, it wouldn’t have to be that long. Obviously a short plug is functional but by using a longer plug a combustion chamber can be drilled into it to increase the safety factor and provide improved combustion of the powder. It’s a trick i learned from the late Bill Brockway. While not truly period authentic i prefer to have the added safety factor and improved performance.
Hank
-
Your "combustion chamber" is period correct and has nothing to do with safety. Henry Nock and his amigos were using that type of breaching and I'm sure Bailes may have been fooling around with it as well being as cutting edge as he was. This type of breaching speeds up ignition and makes a harder hitting gun with out blowing patterns in my actual experience. You'll want to make parabolic chambers otherwise you'll have massive fouling problems. The parabolic chambers also need to be highly polished.
I've followed all of this casually and don't see the point of all of it. A call to Bob Hoyt and you could already had a pair of these barrels delivered profiled exactly how you want them. All of this work on scratch building a lathe that may not even work just doesn't make sense.
-
I've followed all of this casually and don't see the point of all of it. A call to Bob Hoyt and you could already had a pair of these barrels delivered prefilled exactly how you want them. All of this work on scratch building a lathe that may not even work just doesn't make sense.
In actuality, making your own GUN from a blank doesn't make sense. By the time one tools up, buys the parts and builds it, then takes what he/she learned and build a better one, then another and another to get something decent, you could have bought one from a reputable maker and been shooting it for a few years already (and it would likey cost less and be a nicer piece). Sometimes it is more about the journey than the destination. I made a small clevis for the park brake cable on one of my Model A projects from scratch. Could have bought one up town for a couple bucks but where is the fun it that??.
(https://i.ibb.co/rfC7YZG/Resized-20201129-101024.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dJdWFQ0)
(https://i.ibb.co/nnysHVf/Resized-20201129-104637.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
Your "combustion chamber" is period correct and has nothing to do with safety. Henry Nock and his amigos were using that type of breaching and I'm sure Bailes may have been fooling around with it as well being as cutting edge as he was...
Mike, I partially agree with what you’re saying. Addressing the safety factor first: A common fowler of the mid 18th century used a short breech plug with the vent installed in the barrel just ahead of the breech plug. We all know that. When the main powder charge detonates all of the force of the exploding powder acts on the threads and face of the breech plug, barrel wall and vent to ultimately push the ball or shot out of the barrel. We all know that too. With a short breech plug the chamber is the barrel itself. A single wall chamber with burst resistance dependent upon the type of material the barrel is made of and wall thickness at the breech. Using a longer breech plug and drilling a chamber in it creates a double wall breeching system able to withstand much more pressure than just the barrel itself due to the increased thickness of material. Does this not improve the safety factor?
As for period correct: Henry Knock was awarded a patent for his breech plug April 25, 1787, 27 years after Bailes created the subject of this project. This does not mean Bailes may or may not have experimented with different breech plug styles. Is there reason to believe he used the standard fowler style breech plug in his barrels? My research to date indicates yes, there is. Problems with breeching was one of the reasons why doubles were so slow to gain favor in England (Mike Yardley; “A Brief History of the Sporting Gun”: Charles Sawyer; “Firearms in American History 1600 to 1800”: Henry Wilkinson; “Engines of War”). Not until Nock introduced his breeching system did the double begin to gain more popularity in England. So, is a longer breech plug period correct for a circa 1760 fowler reproduction? I have to say no, it’s not.
I agree whole heatedly with chamber geometry as you described it. In my early days of gun building i was ignorant of the facts and several early builds developed breech plug problems later on. I know better these days.
I've followed all of this casually and don't see the point of all of it. A call to Bob Hoyt and you could already had a pair of these barrels delivered profiled exactly how you want them. All of this work on scratch building a lathe that may not even work just doesn't make sense.
Mike, Mike -where to begin? We’ll start with the barrels. If you have been following this thread closely then you should already know that every barrel maker contacted save one declined to make these barrels. The one that said he could do it could not provide a positive lead time. So what’s a mutha to do? Make ‘em! How do you make ‘em? With a lathe. Where does one get a lathe designed specifically to make gun barrels? If it can’t be bought then build it. I couldn’t buy one but do know how to build one. 90% of my 30+ year career was spent on the engineering side of manufacturing. It was my job to design and specify machinery, methods and processes. One can learn a lot in 30 some years so why not use some of that knowledge in gun building? That’s the point of it all.
I hope none of this comes across as being uppity or as being a smarty pants. Just saying how things are as i see it.
In actuality, making your own GUN from a blank doesn't make sense. By the time one tools up, buys the parts and builds it, then takes what he/she learned and build a better one, then another and another to get something decent, you could have bought one from a reputable maker and been shooting it for a few years already (and it would likey cost less and be a nicer piece). Sometimes it is more about the journey than the destination. I made a small clevis for the park brake cable on one of my Model A projects from scratch. Could have bought one up town for a couple bucks but where is the fun it that??.
Cody, you say “...making your own GUN from a blank doesn't make sense...” yet turn around and say “... Could have bought one up town for a couple bucks but where is the fun it that??...” Building a gun from scratch makes perfect sense to someone having the skills to do so. Just as making a brake part, it’s fun, not to mention doing so gives one an incredible sense of accomplishment.
I was going to let this slide but decided to call you on it: “..you could have bought one from a reputable maker and been shooting it for a few years already (and it would likey cost less and be a nicer piece)...” Everyone, obviously, is entitled to their own opinion. I respect your opinion but i do take exception to it. I see this as an insult not only to my intelligence but also my abilities as a gun maker. Now I ask you return the favor and respect my opinion.
Congrats on your successful brake part build even though it has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread.
Hank
-
In actuality, making your own GUN from a blank doesn't make sense. By the time one tools up, buys the parts and builds it, then takes what he/she learned and build a better one, then another and another to get something decent, you could have bought one from a reputable maker and been shooting it for a few years already (and it would likey cost less and be a nicer piece). Sometimes it is more about the journey than the destination. I made a small clevis for the park brake cable on one of my Model A projects from scratch. Could have bought one up town for a couple bucks but where is the fun it that??.
Cody, you say “...making your own GUN from a blank doesn't make sense...” yet turn around and say “... Could have bought one up town for a couple bucks but where is the fun it that??...” Building a gun from scratch makes perfect sense to someone having the skills to do so. Just as making a brake part, it’s fun, not to mention doing so gives one an incredible sense of accomplishment.
I was going to let this slide but decided to call you on it: “..you could have bought one from a reputable maker and been shooting it for a few years already (and it would likey cost less and be a nicer piece)...” Everyone, obviously, is entitled to their own opinion. I respect your opinion but i do take exception to it. I see this as an insult not only to my intelligence but also my abilities as a gun maker. Now I ask you return the favor and respect my opinion.
Congrats on your successful brake part build even though it has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread.
Hank
You COMPLETELY missed my point. "Just as making a brake part, it’s fun, not to mention doing so gives one an incredible sense of accomplishment". THAT was the point I was making. "Sometimes it is more about the journey than the destination". Maybe I did not express myself very well (not unusual for me) or perhaps you read it with a preconception that I was posting to malign you so you read it looking for it to be insulting. I even posted an off topic example (because it was the most readily available one I had) to show that sometimes it is fun (and satisfying) to make some thing that you could just have easily bought. This comment, “..you could have bought one from a reputable maker and been shooting it for a few years already (and it would likely cost less and be a nicer piece)...”, while it started with the word "you" was NOT directed at you specifically. It was in general, most builders spend way more in tooling and parts learning to build a truly fine gun, MUCH more than what they would spend if they just bought one from a reputable maker IF OWNING A RIFLE WAS THE ONLY GOAL. IMO most of us build for the challenge and the pleasure more so than to have a nice rifle. Again, the journey is more important than the destination. If I offended you, I apologize but I do not understand how agreeing with you became offensive. I shall endeavour to either choose my words more wisely or just keep my thoughts to myself.
-
Cody, thank you for clarifying the intent of your post. A problem with message boards such as this, as i see it, is sometimes it's too easy to misinterpret the intention behind the words. Now that i understand the intent of your post i believe an apology from me is in order. No hard feelings here, no harm done. I hope you see it the same way -no hard feelings, no harm done.
Hank
-
Your thread and lathe build is interesting, though I do question the practicality of the lathe. My lab has six Clausing Colchester lathes in 14 and 15 swing configurations and I strongly believe any of those would be a far more ridgid and better machine. These can also be purchased used for probably less than you have invested time and money wise.
I am also curious how much deflection you are getting and whether your outside profiles are concentric with the bore. Perhaps a bore size mandrel would be useful which could be turned on center. With a follower rest this should give you more consistent results and reduce chatter. If I was doing that job I would either switch to a CNC lathe, or better yet do as Mike suggested and simply buy the barrels. Those English doubles were the work of multiple specialists anyway, best to concentrate on a few key areas and let other experts help along the way. Just my thoughts.
-
Well, you obviously enjoy doing everything the hard way! ;D I believe all the doubles I made had parabolic chambers. Had nothing to do with safety on my end, it was all about performance. I owned and shot and original SXS flint gun for a long time that was chambered. A real eye opener for me early on. Makes a huge difference on patterns and how hard the gun hit. It was an 18 bore and would smoke skeet with a 5/8oz shot and 55gr powder load.
I doubt Nock was the first to use a chambered breech, he was just good at marketing and self promotion, no different than the gun makers today.
-
Mike,
Yes, there were all sorts of breech plugs, chamber plugs and such before Nock, , but Nock's was the one that got attention. It was more of a refining of a pattern.
I too have a double from 1815, and it shoots very well and fast. Platinum touchholes.
Its seen a lot of use, as the hammers have been re-faced at least twice.
It has chambers like you describe, or what Nock is famous for.
Hank,
Looking forward to updates, it's a big project!
-
Making a lathe is a bit over the top but it is one more proof of some of the talents and abilities on this forum.Making your own tools,even simple ones like odd size collets is an accomplishment and a lathe to use them is indeed marvelous.Like many others here,I have had a big measure of personal satisfaction from making whatever is wanted or needed for a specific job.At one time I thought of making a small lathe dedicated to only screws and pins but I bought in 1964 a new Atlas 618 and still use it for whatever small jobs needed.I have a 2nd 618 given to me by the son of the man that bought it new in 1965 and it is a Craftsman because it was bought new at Sears&Roebuck.
Having a small shop is a blessing and even though I do little or nothing it is nice to know it's THERE if I feel like doing something,
Bob Roller
-
Cody, thank you for clarifying the intent of your post. A problem with message boards such as this, as i see it, is sometimes it's too easy to misinterpret the intention behind the words. Now that i understand the intent of your post i believe an apology from me is in order. No hard feelings here, no harm done. I hope you see it the same way -no hard feelings, no harm done.
Hank
No worries. This is not the first time that a post I made was misunderstood and I suspect it won't be the last. I hope I did not come across too snarky in my response. I get rather frustrated when I post and the meaning of my post gets turned 160 degrees. This has happened several times over the years so it is obviously due to my lack of ability to get my point across and put my thoughts in print, NOT any fault of those that misinterpret my posts. Cheers, Cody
-
Your thread and lathe build is interesting, though I do question the practicality of the lathe. My lab has six Clausing Colchester lathes in 14 and 15 swing configurations and I strongly believe any of those would be a far more ridgid and better machine. These can also be purchased used for probably less than you have invested time and money wise.
I am also curious how much deflection you are getting and whether your outside profiles are concentric with the bore. Perhaps a bore size mandrel would be useful which could be turned on center. With a follower rest this should give you more consistent results and reduce chatter. If I was doing that job I would either switch to a CNC lathe, or better yet do as Mike suggested and simply buy the barrels. Those English doubles were the work of multiple specialists anyway, best to concentrate on a few key areas and let other experts help along the way. Just my thoughts.
Question away at the practicality! We worked that little lathe pretty hard today. I’ll share how it did at the end of this post. To buy a machine? I looked at used machines. I looked a new machines. Just the transportation costs to my shop put both out of the question. We have the will, we have the technology, we have the time so why not just build one?
Deflection? Just as any other machine it depends on how it’s treated or mistreated and the type of tool used. With a carbide insert we saw up to 0.004” midway between the chuck and tail stock but that was with an extremely aggressive depth of cut. A cut depth actually beyond the capability of the tool. With HSS and an aggressive cut the tool was wrecked before deflection became noticeable. There is no answer concerning concentric profiles. We won’t know that until we get one fully turned. Just as mentioned above, i’ll share the results of today’s turning session at the end of this post.
About buying barrels -Yes it would be simpler to buy them but barrels to replicate a circa 1760 William Bailes double barrel can’t be found or bought for any price. I’m sure you already know the story about having them made so i'll not repeat it here.
You’re right. Some gun makers of centuries past relied on multiple suppliers to build their wares just as today’s manufacturing. They may have had a stock maker, a lock maker, a barrel maker and so on. That would make their trade no different, imo, from building a contemporary gun from a kit. I don’t want a kit. I don’t want to rely on multiple suppliers to build this repro. It’s all up to me to bring this project to fruition. Why? Because I want to and I can. How arrogant is that?
Well, you obviously enjoy doing everything the hard way! ;D I believe all the doubles I made had parabolic chambers. Had nothing to do with safety on my end, it was all about performance. I owned and shot and original SXS flint gun for a long time that was chambered. A real eye opener for me early on. Makes a huge difference on patterns and how hard the gun hit. It was an 18 bore and would smoke skeet with a 5/8oz shot and 55gr powder load.
I doubt Nock was the first to use a chambered breech, he was just good at marketing and self promotion, no different than the gun makers today.
Mike, really, the hard way? To me the hard way would be standing for hours and hours and hours dragging and pushing a file around just to shape a barrel. Who has the energy for that?
It amazes me how even a small change in chamber geometry can have a dramatic effect on ballistic performance. Isn’t it something though to see the look on someone’s face when you out shoot them with a flintlock double? Especially the guy with the $3,000 Benelli.
Mike,
Yes, there were all sorts of breech plugs, chamber plugs and such before Nock, , but Nock's was the one that got attention. It was more of a refining of a pattern.
I too have a double from 1815, and it shoots very well and fast. Platinum touchholes.
Its seen a lot of use, as the hammers have been re-faced at least twice.
It has chambers like you describe, or what Nock is famous for.
Hank,
Looking forward to updates, it's a big project!
I have to agree with you and Mike, Nock probably wasn’t the first to use a chambered breech, rather he took some one else’s idea, improved it and won his patent. Joe Manton did the same thing. Took Nock’s idea one step further to win his patent. Will we ever know who was the first? Probably not.
It is a big project. But, I knew what all it involved before deciding to go ahead with it. No doubt some folks here think i’m nuts but the best part of it is -I am nuts! But i've not had this much fun since the time Becky…. Oh, better not say that.
Making a lathe is a bit over the top but it is one more proof of some of the talents and abilities on this forum.Making your own tools,even simple ones like odd size collets is an accomplishment and a lathe to use them is indeed marvelous.Like many others here,I have had a big measure of personal satisfaction from making whatever is wanted or needed for a specific job.At one time I thought of making a small lathe dedicated to only screws and pins but I bought in 1964 a new Atlas 618 and still use it for whatever small jobs needed.I have a 2nd 618 given to me by the son of the man that bought it new in 1965 and it is a Craftsman because it was bought new at Sears&Roebuck.
Having a small shop is a blessing and even though I do little or nothing it is nice to know it's THERE if I feel like doing something,
Bob Roller
Bob, I see the making of things as a continuation of the pioneer spirit. This spirit, imo, is lacking in today's society. Even the desire to be creative seems to be falling from favor. Maybe i’m talking out the side of my head but i firmly believe if more folks were constructive there would be fewer destructive people on this planet.
It is nice to have things to work with even if they are hand made. Some of the weirdest, most useful tools in my shop are hand made. That’s what it’s all about. If you can’t buy it, make it.
Let’s talk about the lathe! We have one blank rough turned and ready for profiling:
(https://i.ibb.co/dKnj2FM/DSCN3519.jpg) (https://ibb.co/GPgn2yp)
Muzzle end is far right on the tail stock center. Wedding bands will go on the far left end, 20” up from the muzzle.
Machine drive ran flawlessly. The Teco VFD and Iron Horse three phase motor make a perfect combo producing smooth power at any RPM. Coolant system worked as it should. Carriage feed, after replacing the original ball screw, is smooth and responsive. But, some dunderhead (me) forgot to fully tighten the anchor screws of the cross feed ball screw after doing the carriage feed repair work. More about that later. As previously posted, experimenting on black iron pipe gave a good idea of how the machine behaves at various speeds, feed rate and with different tool types. Armed with that information, 2” of the muzzle end of a 19 bore Bailes barrel blank was turned to rough diameter using the experimental “lead rest”. The lead rest idea was abandoned in favor of a follow rest. This created a slight problem.
Since 2” at the muzzle was already turned to rough diameter, there was a very large step that the follow rest could not accommodate. Normally a pass or two is taken at the tail stock to true up the work piece in order to give the follow rest a true surface to ride on. The work piece is then turned full length with the follow rest providing additional support along the length of work piece.
There’s a lot going on in this photo:
(https://i.ibb.co/pQM70Fq/DSCN3512.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QkTgbw0)
Notice the large step in the work piece left of the coolant nozzle and tool post. It’s 0.110” deep, too deep to turn in a single pass. That exceeds cutting tool (and machine) capability. So, the tool was advanced to make a cut then the carriage was advanced until the steady rest made contact with the step. Carriage retracted, tool advanced, carriage advanced and everything repeated until the step was reduced to rough diameter. This continued full length of the work piece. Now, had the muzzle end not already been turned to rough diameter then the work piece could have been turned in single full length passes.
Also in this photo is where the loose cross feed anchor bolts was discovered but only after destroying a second HSS cutting tool. Well, not destroyed just dulled beyond use. After tightening the bolts a carbide insert tool was locked into the tool post and turning to rough diameter completed.
So how did it finish up? Take a look:
(https://i.ibb.co/vzhYdp5/DSCN3521.jpg) (https://ibb.co/KyDwsdZ)
Not too shabby. It could be better imo but with an SCMT carbide cutter in this machine that’s as good as it gets. We’ll use a better grade tool to bring it on down to finish diameter and turn in the profiles.
Now for the other quality aspects, the barrel was checked after turning for parallelism and eccentricity. Starting from the muzzle, the barrel was marked lengthwise at 3 1/4”, 8 1/4”, 13 3/4”, 18 ¼” and 21 1/8” (at the chuck). With a dial indicator placed on the cross feed and zeroed at the muzzle, the carriage was advanced to the first mark and reading recorded for parallelism TIR at the mark. The barrel was then rotated at the mark and reading recorded for eccentricity TIR. This was repeated at each mark. Parallelism checked, starting at the muzzle, (in thousandths): 0, +5, +6 ½, +10, +14, +14 respectively. The barrel tapers 0.014” over 21” sloping down toward the muzzle. This is more than likely do to the way it was turned: cutting it down in steps as opposed to continuous full length turning. TIR eccentricity results really surprised me. Again starting at the muzzle (in thousandths): +/- 0.001, +/- 0, +/- 0.005, +/- 0.001, +/- 0.005, +/-0.001 respectively. Looks like the home brew follow rest works pretty darn good.
This lil machine worked hard today. Even got rough with it a time or two. That’s how the tooling got wrecked. But, the machine held up and did exactly what it was designed to do -produce a perfectly acceptable product. I’m happy with it.
What’s left? Figuring out what to do with this:
(https://i.ibb.co/yVdvdC2/DSCN3523.jpg) (https://ibb.co/CWmCmyL)
I’ll get a video of the machine in operation posted once I find the tripod for the camera. Maybe it’s in the box with Becky’s picture?
Hank
-
Ah HA!! just what I thought. You are manufacturing metal shavings and the barrels are a by product.I did that when I made locks and triggers on an almost daily basis.Have fun.
Bob Roller
-
shhhh... Not so loud Bob. i was hoping to keep that a secret. Now everybody will want some! >insert belly laugh here<
Hank
-
Hank, flaring the further you get away from a chuck or tail center is usually from the steady or follow not properly adjusted. Although, I think you are correct in the fact of you taking out the step being the problem. Once you get a good surface to start at the tail end, and set the follow up correctly, you should be good to go. I can’t see your follow well in the pictures, but I assume it is ridged and not spring loaded or anything like that. When turning, the barrel will want to push away and roll up on the tool. This will cause the chatter and flaring. The reason I bring this up is so you are sure to have the follow rest set to control those forces. Turning a long steel tube is another realm in manual lathe work. It’s not hard but thing need to setup correctly or issues are created.
Bob
-
I really appreciate your feedback Bob. Thanks! The follow rest is rigid. This pic gives a little better view of it:
(https://i.ibb.co/42tYjkC/DSCN3513.jpg) (https://ibb.co/7QCRGhB)
Hard to see this from the pic but it has four rollers on it, two top side and two below deck. As is it works ok but i need to tweek the position of the rollers to provide better support below deck. Top side two do most of the work. Work piece contact pressure is adjusted by turning the nut on the post.
You're right about wanting to roll up on the tool. Saw it happen while experimenting with black iron pipe and to a lesser degree with the Bailes blank. The more aggressive the cut the more tendency to jump on top of the tool. Then again, why wouldn't it? It's a simple matter of mechanics.
A good set up is the most important part of any turning operation imo. Bad set up = bad results. The blank shown above was turned using a less than desirable set up given the need to work the whole thing in steps rather than continuous turning. I'm sure the next will be far better.
Hank
-
Hank, it appears the setup would work if the material was only pushed straight away from the cutter. As you experiment, and if still have issues with chatter or flaring toward the center of the material, my guess is you will still need to look at the follow rest. The straight rod will resist the straight force but it might not hold the lateral. The threaded rod does not have much strength to resist a side load, and I believe the tendency for the part to roll up on the tool is the greater of the two forces when turning a barrel. What you say about the load being carried by the top bearings, and this is normal, confirms that this may be happening. Doesn’t take much deflection to change a part’s dimensions, your .014 flaring is only .007 deflection of the barrel. If this continues to be an issue you might want to check out ebay for a steady or follow rest that could be incorporated into your design. I think a full 360 capture of the barrel may really help.
Bob
-
Thanks for the feedback Bob. Carving in the wedding bands is the trickiest part of the barrels so we'll have to be certain everything machine wise is up to the task. Especially the follow rest. We'll do more experimenting on black pipe before attempting the operation on the rough turned blank. We'll see how it goes keeping your input in mind.
Hank
-
Thanks for the feedback Bob. Carving in the wedding bands is the trickiest part of the barrels so we'll have to be certain everything machine wise is up to the task. Especially the follow rest. We'll do more experimenting on black pipe before attempting the operation on the rough turned blank. We'll see how it goes keeping your input in mind.
Hank
Use a file.....
-
Mike, that’s exactly what I would do, while in the lathe, rather tham making a forming tool. The muzzle was done with a file in this picture. Faster and easier!
Bob
(https://i.ibb.co/gTmVrK1/54-B1-B771-33-FF-41-CE-AAA8-582696119-C9-C.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Kqbw5vZ)
-
Use a file.....
Thanks for the suggestion Mike. Thought about that early on but not sure if i'm capable of doing it. Hands are pretty shaky these days. Bands could be started, i suppose, with a turning tool then finished out by hand. We'll give it a try.
That's one fine looking barrel Bob. You do good work!
Hank
-
One Bailes 19 bore blank turned to finish diameter:
(https://i.ibb.co/D93M91M/DSCN3536.jpg) (https://ibb.co/x1Vg12g)
Location for wedding bands turned to size:
(https://i.ibb.co/stP0PvM/DSCN3538.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kMyRygW)
Going to try Mike Brooks' suggestion and shape the bands by filing. Hope i don't mess it up.
Muzzle flare established:
(https://i.ibb.co/mRYsGyz/DSCN3539.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WHd96zK)
Muzzle OD is still a tad heavy but we'll work it down in final shaping.
Hank
-
I’m guessing that this thread might last for years.
-
I wouldn't have the lathe on when filing in the bands.
-
I’m guessing that this thread might last for years.
It might. Then again it might not. Went from a pile of scrap metal and repurposed machine parts to functional lathe to partially finished barrel blank in just over two months. I'd say it's moving along at a right smart clip.
I wouldn't have the lathe on when filing in the bands.
Been thinking about that Mike. Area to work is pretty close to the chuck. Chuck has really sharp edges too. One bump in to it while spinning could do serious bodily harm. Who needs (or wants) that?
Hank
-
Make an internally expanding mandrel or collet.Stay away from a spinning chuck.These can be made easily from common material in the shop.
Bob Roller
-
Maybe I’m short on attention span but pictures of steel chucked up in a lathe is getting a little bit old. Have you considered posting your progress on a platform like rumble or whatever Bill Raby uses? I laud you ambition with the project but there’s not much old school gun making happening here. This might as well be a model 1100 upgrade.
-
Make an internally expanding mandrel or collet.Stay away from a spinning chuck.These can be made easily from common material in the shop.
Bob Roller
Good idea. Thanks Bob!
Maybe I’m short on attention span but pictures of steel chucked up in a lathe is getting a little bit old. Have you considered posting your progress on a platform like rumble or whatever Bill Raby uses? I laud you ambition with the project but there’s not much old school gun making happening here. This might as well be a model 1100 upgrade.
Now i must ask the many others here on the board: do you see it this way? Perhaps it would be better posted elsewhere?
Hank
-
Hank
I am enjoying the topic.
It is a mixture of awe and "lets see what that crazy guy is doing today."
I do not have any experience with running a metal lathe and it is fascinating to see what you are doing.
There are a lot of topics that I am not interested in and that is OK, I don't click on them to read. Simple.
Fleener
-
Thanks for the feedback Fleener. Good to know you're enjoying this thread.
Anyone else care to comment?
Hank
-
If the discussion here stays civil, there’s no harm being done, except precedent-setting. Though English doubles are of interest to many, it’s a gray area as far as relatedness to the longrifle.
I personally prefer it when members report a post to the moderators for consideration regarding suitability or adherence to the rules, but maybe that’s me being territorial.
-
Seeing as the evolution of the English double and the American Longrifle are unrelated topics, I have no interest in this particular thread other than as a moderator. Like Fleener alluded to, the title of the thread told me right off it wasn’t something I’d be interested in, so I moved on. Keep the conversation about relaying information and and experiences and away from choosing sides, and we’ll all get along just fine.
-
Why get worked up? If you don't like it, don't look at the thread. Again, problems arise when you believe your viewpoint is right or correct and it's imposed on others. There's always ways to attempt to justify a position like this, but it's often as simple as thinking you know better and others should as well.
The line between traditionally made and using equipment is basically non-existent in the muzzleloading world when you dig into it. Also, I don't understand why it being an 18th century British gun would influence whether it's okay or not. British guns of this period have been a pretty big part of the site for a LONG time. I've posted many, Dave Person has posted lots and I'm sure there are MANY more.
I personally might not understand or fully agree with some of the approaches in this thread, but still find it interesting and am sure others do as well. He should certainly have the chance to share what he's working on.
Jim
-
Why get worked up? If you don't like it, don't look at the thread. Again, problems arise when you believe your viewpoint is right or correct and it's imposed on others. There's always ways to attempt to justify a position like this, but it's often as simple as thinking you know better and others should as well.
The line between traditionally made and using equipment is basically non-existent in the muzzleloading world when you dig into it. Also, I don't understand why it being an 18th century British gun would influence whether it's okay or not. British guns of this period have been a pretty big part of the site for a LONG time. I've posted many, Dave Person has posted lots and I'm sure there are MANY more.
I personally might not understand or fully agree with some of the approaches in this thread, but still find it interesting and am sure others do as well. He should certainly have the chance to share what he's working on.
Jim
VERY well said. Thanks Jim.
-
Don't look Ethel, too late, she done been mooned!
I am enjoying the tread. There are not many of us that can make what we need to do a job. Hank, I remember from Bowling Green you always were pushing the envelope so to speak, I always admired guys that would walk where others feared to tread. Carry on Brother
-
Why get worked up? If you don't like it, don't look at the thread. Again, problems arise when you believe your viewpoint is right or correct and it's imposed on others. There's always ways to attempt to justify a position like this, but it's often as simple as thinking you know better and others should as well.
The line between traditionally made and using equipment is basically non-existent in the muzzleloading world when you dig into it. Also, I don't understand why it being an 18th century British gun would influence whether it's okay or not. British guns of this period have been a pretty big part of the site for a LONG time. I've posted many, Dave Person has posted lots and I'm sure there are MANY more.
I personally might not understand or fully agree with some of the approaches in this thread, but still find it interesting and am sure others do as well. He should certainly have the chance to share what he's working on.
Jim
I agree with you and second the well said comment.
-
Hi Hank,
You are on an historical adventure like some of us do regardless of efficiency and making any sense. Crack on buddy!
Senseless in Vermont
-
Hank,
I for one am enjoying the adventure you are embarked upon. And I agree with Smart Dog, Jim K, and others. I have personally had a great run of making and building things that many (or should I say "most") others think are crazy and a waste of my time.....kind of like what all my modern gun shooting friends think about me building and shooting flintlocks....and shooting one muzzle stuffed round ball at a time. I just smile and carry on. I think Smart Dog put it eloquently..... "Crack on !"
Even more senseless in California
-
Don’t stop and keep plugging away...
Cheers Richard
-
Put me in the please keep on keeping on camp - I'm enjoying following this thread.
-
Thanks for all of the positive feedback guys. Early on, first post actually, it was stated that if this project is site inappropriate then it would gladly be removed. I still hold that true. But, it was given the blessing of several members and we proceeded. A couple days ago I began to think it shouldn’t be on here and if the consensus agreed then it would be removed. Your valued input canceled that doubt. We will continue and that’s the end of that. Let’s build a gun!
We have the first barrel profiled:
(https://i.ibb.co/V21LkB8/muzzle-flare.jpg) (https://ibb.co/pJ71kXp)
Muzzle flare in this pic is somewhat pronounced due to camera angle. Actual taper is barely visible just looking at it. Taper from bands to muzzle totals 0.080” with 0.020” of that being the last 4” to form the flare at the muzzle. Round part overall length is 21 1/16”.
First attempt at adding wedding bands didn't turn out so good:
(https://i.ibb.co/3y8KBRC/bad-bands.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mCYp6Nc)
Totally unacceptable. Grooves are too wide, minor bands off location in relation to major bands due to groove width. It’s a do over for sure.
Here’s the original:
(https://i.ibb.co/sVTt463/1760-bands.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
Hank
-
I think it's safe to say most original fowling piece barrels had the bands filed in by hand. In my experience they often don't extend to the bottom of the barrel, but are only present in the area you can see.
You may find this easier. Sometimes using a basic method can be faster in the end and as a benefit, can create a product that more accurately represents the feel of original work.
Jim
-
The Spanish barrels I have had are the only ones that the the bands went all the way around and were decorated with foliage like those pictured above. I would assume these Bailes barrels are Spanish as well.
-
Yes from what I know the Spanish and Portuguese barrels were turned all the way around. All the others I've had apart were filed in affairs. The picture of the barrels on the original that was pictured looks Spanish to me.
-
I did these with a jewelers saw and needle files (Swiss made) I wouldn't attempt it with junk files. Some originals clearly just go half way around and others just look so perfect as if done by a lathe.
(https://i.ibb.co/933W9xj/20230427-092652.jpg) (https://ibb.co/BKKBVhR)
lradac (https://nonprofitlight.com/sc/columbia/lradac-foundation)
(https://i.ibb.co/Jp7Y6cM/20230427-092636.jpg) (https://ibb.co/vdPNycK)
-
And I could not have done it without 10X Optivisor
-
I think it's safe to say most original fowling piece barrels had the bands filed in by hand. In my experience they often don't extend to the bottom of the barrel, but are only present in the area you can see.
You may find this easier. Sometimes using a basic method can be faster in the end and as a benefit, can create a product that more accurately represents the feel of original work.
Jim
I agree with hand filing Jim. Biggest problem in my case is technique. The miserable looking attempt above is the result of a bad method. It started out ok by scoring the outlines on the lathe but where it got messed up was trying to file them in by hand. We'll give it another try.
The Spanish barrels I have had are the only ones that the the bands went all the way around and were decorated with foliage like those pictured above. I would assume these Bailes barrels are Spanish as well.
Yes from what I know the Spanish and Portuguese barrels were turned all the way around. All the others I've had apart were filed in affairs. The picture of the barrels on the original that was pictured looks Spanish to me.
Mike, James -yes the Bailes 1760 barrels did come from Spain. Bands wrap around the barrels as the fore stock ends just before the octagon to round transition. Bottom view of the original:
(https://i.ibb.co/QQ04vSb/bands-on-bottom.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
I did these with a jewelers saw and needle files (Swiss made) I wouldn't attempt it with junk files. Some originals clearly just go half way around and others just look so perfect as if done by a lathe.
JH, those are good looking bands. Obviously not your first time "around the block". Funny you should mention junk files. The ones i have are junk and, well, you've seen the result. Thanks for sharing your work. It gives me a little more to go on in the next attempt.
Thanks for the input guys. It is appreciated.
Hank
-
Hi,
Here are photos of a 300 year old Spanish barrel by Bis.
(https://i.ibb.co/M2qrZq1/barrel-1.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/py2ctFz/barrel-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/C2BgkG7)
(https://i.ibb.co/Z85GqZS/barrel-3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/yytdH3p)
(https://i.ibb.co/SKCC5Xb/chiseled-decoration.jpg) (https://ibb.co/br99QgT)
(https://i.ibb.co/nPfGWm6/lug-dovetail-gone.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hYH6q9L)
The chiseled decoration goes all the way around the barrel. My other Spanish barrel by Eudal Pous is the same way.
dave
-
How are you planing to do the relief chiseling in front of the bands? Even with over 40 years of experience I'd no be confident in my ability to reproduce it.
-
Thanks for the great pics Dave. That's the kind of clear detail the pics i have lack. This gives lots more info to take from.
Mike, i have no clue how to get the scroll work on that band. The last engraving i did ended up looking like neanderthal cave art. Engraving is one of those things where you either have the talent or don't have the talent. I don't have it. Given the broad talent base here on the board i'm sure there's somebody that does have it.
We're getting closer to making acceptable barrel bands:
(https://i.ibb.co/YXz33P4/new-barrel-bands.jpg) (https://ibb.co/G9K00nf)
Grooves still too wide, minor bands too wide, major band profile isn't too far off. Now that i have the technique figured out it's just a simple matter of using the right tool to carve the grooves. I'm thinking a small flat graver or jewelers' saw as JH Ehlers uses.
Hank
-
Could that actually be carved out work as opposed to engraved? It looks a little taller.
-
Could that actually be carved out work as opposed to engraved? It looks a little taller.
Yes, it is relief carved. I still don't have the talent for it.
Hank
-
Chuck edwards could probably do it. I'd have him engrave the whole gun if you can't engrave.
-
Hank, Use a high speed steel 60 degree threading tool. I wanted to show you, so this afternoon I did a band on a scrap octagon piece. Took ten minutes, not perfect but if I took more time it would be. The files I show are what I used to finish the radius’s, with the lathe running. The small file is square and the three side is a 6 inch with a safe side. You need the safe side to finish these radius’s and make sure the corners don’t cut. The last picture is the specs I used for each band. The bottom number is the width and the top is the depth at each point. The depth varies by the width of the band.
Hope this helps.
Bob
(https://i.ibb.co/q7XCF3G/9-E201-D2-D-6-C15-45-D9-BF48-B4-EE6-A72564-F.jpg) (https://ibb.co/sbkCJdS)
(https://i.ibb.co/T4m8bts/BC812-EF6-BC10-4783-A505-D4-CEC214-FA31.jpg) (https://ibb.co/X7Ss3tq)
(https://i.ibb.co/KLQf4jh/789-A338-F-B5-A7-400-D-8-DDA-FDA4-C1-D8-DABF.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hZn4QR9)
(https://i.ibb.co/sWg3Khb/879-D3160-B272-4787-B43-A-BF5-A3-D76-D53-E.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Sf6vt25)
(https://i.ibb.co/kSZxZVx/5-F2-F1581-3-ECC-4662-BEC1-454-CB7-FDB381.jpg) (https://ibb.co/YLg3g43)
-
Hank, if they were doing the wedding bands on a lathe 300 years ago, my guess would be they were using a graver style lathe chisel almost the same as wood turning from a rest. It would be easier to get the fine details right then, proportions are also important to have it look right. I kind of stop when I see I'm going to mess it up, think, and try something else. I don't have a lathe any more, wish I had. The kind of steel also matters, leaded steel cuts like butter. Good luck, I am enjoying this thread.
-
Chuck edwards could probably do it. I'd have him engrave the whole gun if you can't engrave.
Thanks Mike. i'll look him up.
Hank, Use a high speed steel 60 degree threading tool. I wanted to show you, so this afternoon I did a band on a scrap octagon piece....
Thanks for the input Bob. Those are good looking bands and only 10 minutes. You do good work! Let's take another look at this pic:
(https://i.ibb.co/YXz33P4/new-barrel-bands.jpg) (https://ibb.co/G9K00nf)
The original has quite narrow grooves and bands. My attempt does not. The attempt pictured here was started with a thread cutting tool then worked by hand filing. The major band resembles the original but minor bands don't even come close. Maybe i'm too detail oriented as most will never know the difference but the difference is i will know it does not accurately portray the original. Things like this tend to put my OCD into overdrive. Read on my friend.
Hank, if they were doing the wedding bands on a lathe 300 years ago, my guess would be they were using a graver style lathe chisel almost the same as wood turning from a rest. It would be easier to get the fine details right then, proportions are also important to have it look right. I kind of stop when I see I'm going to mess it up, think, and try something else. I don't have a lathe any more, wish I had. The kind of steel also matters, leaded steel cuts like butter. Good luck, I am enjoying this thread.
You speak in truth saying proportion is important to have it look right. The attempt shown above is not proportional compared to the original. As for tooling, we'll be grinding custom tools today to see if we can make one to lathe turn those narrow bands and grooves. Blank material is 1020 and just as the leaded series of steel is free machining. Good to know you're enjoying this thread. I appreciate your input!
Hank
-
Hank, if they were doing the wedding bands on a lathe 300 years ago, my guess would be they were using a graver style lathe chisel almost the same as wood turning from a rest. It would be easier to get the fine details right then, proportions are also important to have it look right. I kind of stop when I see I'm going to mess it up, think, and try something else. I don't have a lathe any more, wish I had. The kind of steel also matters, leaded steel cuts like butter. Good luck, I am enjoying this thread.
Hi,
In Espingarda Perfeyta, there is an engraving showing a barrel being turned on a lathe and rounded using a hand held chisel. The lathe looks much like a modern wood lathe. The book was published in 1713 but shows methods used much earlier than that.
dave
(https://i.ibb.co/jGhbRnk/turning-the-barrel.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Y82PZHB)
-
Hank, if they were doing the wedding bands on a lathe 300 years ago, my guess would be they were using a graver style lathe chisel almost the same as wood turning from a rest. It would be easier to get the fine details right then, proportions are also important to have it look right. I kind of stop when I see I'm going to mess it up, think, and try something else. I don't have a lathe any more, wish I had. The kind of steel also matters, leaded steel cuts like butter. Good luck, I am enjoying this thread.
Hi,
In Espingarda Perfeyta, there is an engraving showing a barrel being turned on a lathe and rounded using a hand held chisel. The lathe looks much like a modern wood lathe. The book was published in 1713 but shows methods used much earlier than that.
dave
(https://i.ibb.co/jGhbRnk/turning-the-barrel.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Y82PZHB)
Ha was just heading into the study to get that pic
-
No offense here. Have you ever stocked up a flint SXS? Do you have wood carving skills that are up to par to pull off the carving behind the breech? Do you have access to a foundry to pour the silver mounts?
I'm thinking Ed Rayle could turn a set of barrels and put them together by the time you make and prep the mounts. A lot of this project is going to be near impossible if you don't have the skill level to pull it off.
Having made several of these using original damascus barrels I can tell you they are a very advanced project even if you have the skills to do it. After the last one I did I swore them off forever. It's cheaper to just buy an original.
-
Hi,
In Espingarda Perfeyta, there is an engraving showing a barrel being turned on a lathe and rounded using a hand held chisel. The lathe looks much like a modern wood lathe. The book was published in 1713 but shows methods used much earlier than that.
dave
Dang -how cool is that? Need to see if i can get a copy of that book. Thanks for sharing Dave!
No offense here. Have you ever stocked up a flint SXS? Do you have wood carving skills that are up to par to pull off the carving behind the breech? Do you have access to a foundry to pour the silver mounts?
I'm thinking Ed Rayle could turn a set of barrels and put them together by the time you make and prep the mounts. A lot of this project is going to be near impossible if you don't have the skill level to pull it off.
Having made several of these using original damascus barrels I can tell you they are a very advanced project even if you have the skills to do it. After the last one I did I swore them off forever. It's cheaper to just buy an original.
No offense taken Mike. All legitimate questions. I've built quite a few flint doubles over the last three decades. Can't recall how many for sure but it's more than 20. Wrote a book about building 'em in 2002 titled The Classic English Double Barrel: An illustrated guide to recreating your classic. It's now in its fourth edition and still in print. Eric Bye gave it an excellent review in November, 2016 Muzzle Blasts. You can check it out on my store front. Just click the globe between my e-mail and profile icon. There's a book preview there free to download. It's also available through Lulu:https://www.lulu.com/shop/gary-hankins/the-classic-english-double-barrel/paperback/product-7pm5mg.html?page=1&pageSize=4 (https://www.lulu.com/shop/gary-hankins/the-classic-english-double-barrel/paperback/product-7pm5mg.html?page=1&pageSize=4). Building one isn't easy for sure and not everyone can do it but i find real joy in tackling the job. The first double i built took over 500 hours to complete. Now it takes me close to 200 hours if everything goes smoothly.
As for casting the parts we'll be using sand moulds, again nothing new to me. So, at the risk of sounding pompous and arrogant, i do have the skills and experience to bring this project to fruition. Pretty arrogant huh?
Hank
-
That's Great Hank. I had never heard of you before, so I wasn't sure if you were capable of finishing something like this. None of my business really.
-
No worries Mike. Not many people have heard of me. The path to discovery begins with a question. All anyone has to do is ask.
Hank
-
I've got your book Hank, and can definitely recommend it to anyone who is thinking about building a double.
Best regards
Rolf
-
I've got your book Hank, and can definitely recommend it to anyone who is thinking about building a double.
Best regards
Rolf
Thanks Rolf. Hope you find it helpful.
Hank
-
We’re making progress on the 11 bore barrels. Both turned including bands. Do the bands match? Yes. Are the identical? No but neither is the original:
(https://i.ibb.co/7r80NfX/DSCN3552.jpg) (https://ibb.co/frBTGg2)
Do the barrels match? Yes. Are they identical? Not yet. Are they to finish diameter? Not yet. Wall thickness of each barrel from step at the bands to muzzle is heavy and must thinned:
(https://i.ibb.co/T8Ldvm2/DSCN3554.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hWfw7D9)
Outside diameter of each barrel is 0.975” at the band step expanding to 1.0” at the muzzle. Overall length of the round portion of each barrel is 21 1/16”. The last 6” as measured from the bands expands roughly 0.004” per inch to make the flare at the muzzle. Wall thickness at the step of the bands (thinnest part of each barrel) can be no less than 0.010” to maintain working and burst pressure requirements. As the barrels sit now, wall thickness is roughly 0.113” at the step and nearly 1/8” at the muzzle. So, reducing barrel diameter another 0.100” full length will allow roughly 0.063” wall thickness at the step of the bands, which more than satisfies working and burst pressure requirements. Also, this will put wall thickness at the muzzle close to 0.075”, which is quite acceptable imo. It could be made thinner i suppose but i just don’t want to push my luck.
The only problem is the lathe (hereafter known as the Ploughfunct MMP) can’t do a close tolerance turn. We’ll have to rough the first 0.075” then take off the remaining by hand. Yes, i bought some BIG files.
Having never made a barrel before, let alone two that match to make a double, i think all is going pretty good. Sure have learned a lot and still have a long way to go. Up next, after turning to finish diameter, we'll be machining the tapered octagon, breeching the barrels and proof testing.
Thanks for tuning in.
Hank
-
I would suspect the octagon section isn't just tapered, but rather has a very gently "swamp" to it. Generally a straight taper will have a bulged appearance in the center and look bad. On of those optical illusions...
-
We’re making progress on the 11 bore barrels. Both turned including bands. Do the bands match? Yes. Are the identical? No but neither is the original:
(https://i.ibb.co/7r80NfX/DSCN3552.jpg) (https://ibb.co/frBTGg2)
Do the barrels match? Yes. Are they identical? Not yet. Are they to finish diameter? Not yet. Wall thickness of each barrel from step at the bands to muzzle is heavy and must thinned:
(https://i.ibb.co/T8Ldvm2/DSCN3554.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hWfw7D9)
Outside diameter of each barrel is 0.975” at the band step expanding to 1.0” at the muzzle. Overall length of the round portion of each barrel is 21 1/16”. The last 6” as measured from the bands expands roughly 0.004” per inch to make the flare at the muzzle. Wall thickness at the step of the bands (thinnest part of each barrel) can be no less than 0.010” to maintain working and burst pressure requirements. As the barrels sit now, wall thickness is roughly 0.113” at the step and nearly 1/8” at the muzzle. So, reducing barrel diameter another 0.100” full length will allow roughly 0.063” wall thickness at the step of the bands, which more than satisfies working and burst pressure requirements. Also, this will put wall thickness at the muzzle close to 0.075”, which is quite acceptable imo. It could be made thinner i suppose but i just don’t want to push my luck.
The only problem is the lathe (hereafter known as the Ploughfunct MMP) can’t do a close tolerance turn. We’ll have to rough the first 0.075” then take off the remaining by hand. Yes, i bought some BIG files.
Having never made a barrel before, let alone two that match to make a double, i think all is going pretty good. Sure have learned a lot and still have a long way to go. Up next, after turning to finish diameter, we'll be machining the tapered octagon, breeching the barrels and proof testing.
Thanks for tuning in.
Hank
Hank, are the barrels you are copying relieved inside the muzzle area like many birding pieces or are they cylinder throughout like a fuzee?
-
Those muzzles appear to maybe have end chokes.
-
Hank, have you done the math so you know what rough barrel diameter is required to machine octagon? Using your .875 at the transition would require a diameter of .947, at the transition, more if tapering from the breech.
As far as barrel wall thickness, your planned dimensions would work fine as long as you know the bores are concentric to the OD of the barrels. Is what I’m saying is, that while turning, if the barrels were turned elliptical then you could have thin spots. This can also happen in the final finishing or striking the barrels.
I do quite a bit of modern shotgun work, both steel and damascus, at least they were modern around 1890. These were black powder guns. I have the equipment to measure bores and wall thickness accurately. This can not be done accurately by taking the OD and subtracting the bore, divided by 2. I don’t want to get into what is safe, that’s a individuals decision, but do want to say that .010 anywhere in a barrel is not safe. In a barrel of the date I mentioned, I want to see more than .100, preferably more than .110, at the front of a chamber, which is usually the thinnest section of a chamber. Of course all this is on a barrel with generally a good bore, ribs, and so on. The thinest part of a barrel is normally 7 to 9 inches from the muzzle. I like to see more than .025 in this area. The barrel must get thicker from this thin section back to the chamber. Wall thickness on these barrels can be dramatically different radially at the same position in a barrel. This is generally from striking the barrel, and could be this way from new or because it refinished at some point.
The reason I bring all this up is so you are thinking through all the issues and what is considered safe for you and, of course, others around you when shooting.
Bob
-
Just in case some doubt what I’m saying, here is a barrel I cut off 9 inches from the muzzle.
The first picture is the factory muzzle, looks good, and the second is the new muzzle.
(https://i.ibb.co/WncB4YR/FAA72-AA4-8544-4908-B0-EC-7-DD02-E19-AC0-C.jpg) (https://ibb.co/TcHPxFN)
(https://i.ibb.co/rvgYrL4/2654860-E-FD02-423-D-992-C-344610-D174-CC.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8XJqZR6)
-
Because the barrel is centered on the bore at the muzzle when turned, it’s bound to have even walls there even if the drilled and reamed hole has some curve to it that will be revealed when some is cut off.
-
I would suspect the octagon section isn't just tapered, but rather has a very gently "swamp" to it. Generally a straight taper will have a bulged appearance in the center and look bad. On of those optical illusions...
Thanks for bringing that up Jim. On the examples i've studied through photos, the 1760 Bailes in particular, there is a very mild swamp to the octagon beginning just ahead of the breech and seemingly disappears a couple inches back from the barrel bands. It's almost imperceptible until closely studying how the top rib is shaped for the first few inches. When mating the barrels the adjoining flats must be thinned somewhat to regulate the barrel set. This will have a tendency to negate the appearance of the swamp at the top rib but if one looks closely you can see it's still there.
(https://i.ibb.co/NVbvYWY/bailes-double-bonham-auction.jpg) (https://ibb.co/3rQ3hSh)
Hank, are the barrels you are copying relieved inside the muzzle area like many birding pieces or are they cylinder throughout like a fuzee?
Those muzzles appear to maybe have end chokes.
James, Daryl, both are true cylinder bore. Thought about working an improved cylinder choke into one of 'em but decided not to.
Hank, have you done the math so you know what rough barrel diameter is required to machine octagon? Using your .875 at the transition would require a diameter of .947, at the transition, more if tapering from the breech.
As far as barrel wall thickness, your planned dimensions would work fine as long as you know the bores are concentric to the OD of the barrels. Is what I’m saying is, that while turning, if the barrels were turned elliptical then you could have thin spots. This can also happen in the final finishing or striking the barrels.
I do quite a bit of modern shotgun work, both steel and damascus, at least they were modern around 1890. These were black powder guns. I have the equipment to measure bores and wall thickness accurately. This can not be done accurately by taking the OD and subtracting the bore, divided by 2. I don’t want to get into what is safe, that’s a individuals decision, but do want to say that .010 anywhere in a barrel is not safe. In a barrel of the date I mentioned, I want to see more than .100, preferably more than .110, at the front of a chamber, which is usually the thinnest section of a chamber. Of course all this is on a barrel with generally a good bore, ribs, and so on. The thinest part of a barrel is normally 7 to 9 inches from the muzzle. I like to see more than .025 in this area. The barrel must get thicker from this thin section back to the chamber. Wall thickness on these barrels can be dramatically different radially at the same position in a barrel. This is generally from striking the barrel, and could be this way from new or because it refinished at some point.
The reason I bring all this up is so you are thinking through all the issues and what is considered safe for you and, of course, others around you when shooting.
Bob
I really appreciate your input Bob. Thanks! Yes, we did the math. Diameter of each band is 1.022". Raw blank diameter is 1.5". This is more than enough material to mill in the octagon to make it nearly flush to the bands and keep the proper width at the breech.
Given the physical properties of 1020 steel, 0.010" wall thickness is the absolute minimum to assure a safe, functional barrel. This does not mean they will be made that thin. The step at the band is the thinnest part of the barrel and falls nearly 13" from the breech. Bore gauge says inside diameter of both barrels is 0.7495" and 0.7500" at 13" with negligible difference at 12" and 14". Indicated outside diameter TIR at 13" is -0.0000", +0.0005 and -0.0005, +0.0000" Hence, outside diameter of each barrel is concentric to the bore within 0.0005". Not even worth worrying about.
Now, back to wall thickness: Removing the extra 0.100" full length makes the barrel wall approximately 0.063" at its thinnest section. This more than doubles the burst pressure rating at 13". Does this mean the barrel is indestructible? No. If some dunderhead loads it with smokeless or short charges the wadding and shot or attempts to fire it with an obstructed bore then yes, there could be a problem. But is this not true for any m/l fowler? Or any gun for that matter?
Bob, the second pic of the trimmed barrel definitely shows some eccentricity. Have you measured the difference in wall thickness?
Because the barrel is centered on the bore at the muzzle when turned, it’s bound to have even walls there even if the drilled and reamed hole has some curve to it that will be revealed when some is cut off.
That's a good point Rich. Unless the bore is ridiculously angled end to end a turned barrel will be relatively concentric its whole length. A skilled machinist can recognize an off center condition and make adjustments to compensate for it resulting in a truly concentric barrel wall.
I've grown long winded and my apology to those that find this a boring lot of BS. But hey, i'm an engineer. If anyone has spent time working with one of those critters then you know how it can be from time to time.
Hank
-
Hank, no, never measured it, never felt it was necessary I guess because it was so far off.
On another subject…..does the Bailes gun have an offset stock, for a left eye dominant person, shooting right handed? What can be seen in the picture shows what looks like lots of cast off.
Bob
-
What can be seen in the picture shows what looks like lots of cast off
Boy, I'll say. I wasn't going to say anything untill he got through all of this barrel stuff and then the great adventures in making a left and right hand lock. I figure after all that the stock will be the easy part.
Just thinking aloud here, but in the old days it would have taken a small army of talented artisans to produce a gun like this. Bailes probably did nothing more than act as the contractor that pulled all of this together to satisfy a client. I doubt he laid a hand on it.
-
"Given the physical properties of 1020 steel, 0.010" wall thickness is the absolute minimum to assure a safe, functional barrel. This does not mean they will be made that thin. The step at the band is the thinnest part of the barrel and falls nearly 13" from the breech. Bore gauge says inside diameter of both barrels is 0.7495" and 0.7500" at 13" with negligible difference at 12" and 14". Indicated outside diameter TIR at 13" is -0.0000", +0.0005 and -0.0005, +0.0000" Hence, outside diameter of each barrel is concentric to the bore within 0.0005". Not even worth worrying about."
You are assuming the bore is straight and concentric with both ends... That is, it's a true cylinder. Not necessarily a good assumption if you are dealing with thinner wall thicknesses.
-
I shot a Griffin SXS of this same era and coincidentally it was an 11 bore too. Doc Baker had just bought it and had it up on the skeet range at friendship. He asked if anybody want to shoot it and of course I stepped right up, and I got another turn later too. It Handled just like a modern SXS.
It was far more conservative than this Bailes gun.
-
Hank, no, never measured it, never felt it was necessary I guess because it was so far off.
On another subject…..does the Bailes gun have an offset stock, for a left eye dominant person, shooting right handed? What can be seen in the picture shows what looks like lots of cast off.
Bob
Boy, I'll say. I wasn't going to say anything untill he got through all of this barrel stuff and then the great adventures in making a left and right hand lock. I figure after all that the stock will be the easy part.
Just thinking aloud here, but in the old days it would have taken a small army of talented artisans to produce a gun like this. Bailes probably did nothing more than act as the contractor that pulled all of this together to satisfy a client. I doubt he laid a hand on it.
Bob, Mike, that stock imo has a ridiculous amount of cast. Here's what Keith Neal says about it: "The butt is cast for use from the left shoulder, with left eye master" ( Messrs Griffin & Tow and W. Bailes p. 156). The project gun is being built to shoot. Since i'm right eye dominant it will not have cast as displayed by the original. Does this mean it will not be a true reproduction? In the purest sense, yes. If i were to build an exact copy for display only then it would definitely have the same cast feature.
Mike, you're quite fortunate to have the opportunity to hold and shoot one of these early doubles. Could say i'm jealous but would it do any good?
...You are assuming the bore is straight and concentric with both ends... That is, it's a true cylinder. Not necessarily a good assumption if you are dealing with thinner wall thicknesses.
I agree Jim -that's not a good assumption. Not trying to come across as a smarty pants or know it all but we're not making assumptions. There's too much at stake and the risk of personal danger is too real to assume anything. Only a fool or idiot would do that. We're paying painstaking attention to detail throughout this barrel making process to assure not only the quality but also safety of the finished product.
Hank
-
What can be seen in the picture shows what looks like lots of cast off
Boy, I'll say. I wasn't going to say anything untill he got through all of this barrel stuff and then the great adventures in making a left and right hand lock. I figure after all that the stock will be the easy part.
Just thinking aloud here, but in the old days it would have taken a small army of talented artisans to produce a gun like this. Bailes probably did nothing more than act as the contractor that pulled all of this together to satisfy a client. I doubt he laid a hand on it.
The great adventures of making left and right hand locks is called Schmerzen im Arsch in the old Chicago neighborhood I lived in as a brat.
Barrel makers,lock filers,engravers and gun stockers all had a hand.I have made several sets of left and right locks including one set for a Rigby copy that are still unused as far as I now know.They were "4 pin"style and I got around $800 for that job years ago.
I used L&R externals on several sets for different makers but some of these were were separated and made into 2 different guns.
Bob Roller
-
I've been lucky enough to stumble into quite a bit of Kieth Neal's collection. I got to handle everything I saw, quite a treat to handle all of the stuff I had been studying in books for years. I was also fortunate enough to own the 12 bore breech loading doglock rifle that was in the collection.
I also live close to rock island auction Co. And make it a point to go over on viewing day to look at all the British guns
I'll eventually own one of the sxs flint Manton guns that go through there....I just need to figure out where to hide it when I get it home.
.
-
Mike, i hope you get that Manton. As for somewhere to hide it? Bring it to my place. Your significant other will never find it here.
Been a shift in priority here on the farm. It's the busy season but we did manage to get one 19 bore barrel turned to finished dimensions. Finally got the band detail ironed out. Really happy with how it finished up:
(https://i.ibb.co/308DTJQ/final-band.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8jRWmht)
Length of the barrel round is 22 3/4" including the bands. Barrel outside diameter expands 0.002" per inch consistent to 16 3/4" as measured from the bands. Last 6" expands 0.0032" per inch to form the flare at the muzzle:
(https://i.ibb.co/59XQv9K/finished-flare.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9vmx2vZ)
Barrel wall thickness at the muzzle looks heavy but this is due to the relatively small bore size:
(https://i.ibb.co/B3DJCrB/muzzle-wt.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JtLTsyH)
Actual wall thickness at the muzzle measures 0.125" which is only 0.002" off specified dimension. Overall i'm quite pleased with this barrel. It's a keeper. We'll get the other 19 bore barrel tuned next before milling in the octagon of each barrel. Then it's time for breeching and proof testing.
Hank
-
Spent some time today working on the second 19 bore barrel. How’d it finish up? It’s junk. Was hoping to get it turned to finished diameter but in my incessant lack of patience i tried to rush the finish cut. Barrel jumped the cutter and left this nasty gouge:
(https://i.ibb.co/BCCbT81/junk-barrel.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gRRNtsn)
Stupid me. It can still be worked into a usable barrel but as a mate for the already turned 19 bore barrel? Forget it. The damage is too severe. First major setback of the project but what the hey? I’m sure there will be other setbacks. We still have the 11 bore barrels to finish up and we’ll concentrate on them to build the Bailes double. Was really hoping (more like planning) to build it as a 19 bore but once again what the hey? We’ll press on, order more 19 bore blanks and probably build a second Bailes double as a 19 bore.
I must be nuts!
Hank
-
Did that bend the blank, Hank? ;)
-
No, didn't bend it Daryl. That gouge can be worked away to salvage the barrel but doing so will change the taper and outside diameter in that area. It would look absolutely horrible if joined to the other barrel with a top rib. But, it could make a decent barrel for a single if the flub is worked away.
Hank
-
That's good. Gouges are most unfortunate.
-
...Gouges are most unfortunate.
Unfortunate indeed Daryl but it's my own dumb fault. Some lessons must be learned over and over.
We have both 11 bore barrels turned to finish diameter, breeches drilled and tapped and temporary breech plugs installed. Both barrels were proof tested to CIP load standards for the "definitive proof load". According to the rules of 1887 each barrel was loaded with 190 grains of powder and 1 ¾ ounces of shot then test fired. Prior to test firing each barrel was marked at three inch intervals beginning at the bands. Outside diameter was measured and recorded accordingly. Measurements were repeated after test firing to find any change in outside diameter along the length of each barrel. Neither barrel exhibited any change. Breech plugs remained tight after firing and there are no signs of damage to the breech threads or bore of the barrels. We have a set of sound, workable barrels. All that’s left to do with the barrels is carve the band detail, mill the flats, make and install the permanent breech plugs then join and regulate them. All easily accomplished in one afternoon right? Right!
Here’s the proof test video:
https://youtu.be/3URDIYU_OB4 (https://youtu.be/3URDIYU_OB4)
Hank
-
Thats nice Hank! I got your book today and I like it very much :)
Runar
-
Thats nice Hank! I got your book today and I like it very much :)
Runar
Thanks Runar. Happy to hear you like the book. Hope you find it quite useful.
Hank
-
I've been lucky enough to stumble into quite a bit of Kieth Neal's collection. I got to handle everything I saw, quite a treat to handle all of the stuff I had been studying in books for years.
That would have been quite the treat. I have a copy of the auction catalog when the Neal collection was sold off. Pretty spectacular stuff.
-
Spent time working on the Bailes 11 bore barrels. Flats now on both barrels and looking pretty good imo :
(https://i.ibb.co/MMSk3jL/DSCN3628.jpg) (https://ibb.co/YpQBqKG)
(https://i.ibb.co/0CSZQC1/DSCN3613.jpg) (https://ibb.co/rxSMvxq)
(https://i.ibb.co/fnx50fj/DSCN3614.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wwzX6V5)
(https://i.ibb.co/FDgTws9/DSCN3627.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ZMWD8H3)
Need to follow up with a draw file to work away grinder marks. With top flats already identified it’s a simple matter of working adjoining flats to near parallel in preparation for joining and regulating.
An angle grinder and custom built holding jig made short work of grinding the flats as both were ground to shape in one afternoon:
(https://i.ibb.co/y5GYd76/DSCN3606.jpg) (https://ibb.co/NpQmtb9)
The jig was built from scrap material found scattered about here on the farm. Steel top rails have a slight amount of swamp, which was easy for the grinder to transfer to the flats. The amount of swamp is barely noticeable just looking at a barrel but is blatantly apparent when both are placed side by side. A scrap octagon barrel held in place by the clamp and a full length mandrel serves as the index to grind the flats. The jig was designed to include an adjustment feature on each end under the clamp to allow the barrel to sit at an angle in the jig to grind in the proper amount of taper:
(https://i.ibb.co/wS5gyjs/DSCN3605.jpg) (https://ibb.co/pfYw25y)
Other news: We have the breech plugs turned, chambers milled and polished:
(https://i.ibb.co/LSd6JJS/DSCN3619.jpg) (https://ibb.co/R2TPBB2)
We’ll install and fit the breech plugs and shape the hooks after the barrels are joined. But, the band detail on both barrels needs chiseled in before joining the barrels. Is there a talented individual here willing to take on this task? I could do it. Maybe. If Neanderthal cave art was the order of the day then i would definitely do it myself. Such is not the case and it’s best to let someone that knows what they’re doing handle it.
Hank
-
We have the barrels ready to join. Two adjoining flats first had to be worked into a near parallel condition. After filing both flats, one was painted with makeshift tool maker’s dye:
(https://i.ibb.co/dQYwPkH/DSCN3636.jpg) (https://ibb.co/y8jc6gx)
Makeshift tool maker’s dye:
(https://i.ibb.co/ww46wnZ/DSCN3634.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jWD4WC9)
Barrels were then clamped together and tapped lightly with a no-mar hammer to locate high spots on the flat:
(https://i.ibb.co/Dpr513N/DSCN3638.jpg) (https://ibb.co/BNnqf8m)
A high spot appears shiny against the painted surface:
(https://i.ibb.co/y8qypXJ/DSCN3643.jpg) (https://ibb.co/tbDsz45)
High spots were then worked away using either a small file or sanding block dependent upon the size of the spot. It took a few hours to get both barrels ready to join. But, this step is critical to achieve a good weld seam. Barrels will be brazed together full length of the flat. To have a strong joint it’s recommended to have a 0.001” to 0.005” gap for a brazed seam. The only way I know of to do this is by hand fitting the adjoining parts. Gap width was checked using a feeler gauge as fitting progressed to reach the necessary gap requirement.
After fitting, each barrel was placed into the shaping jig then draw filed and rough sanded using a sanding block:
(https://i.ibb.co/56PSGz4/DSCN3653.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kxtw5rB)
Here’s all of the parts needed to build the barrel set:
(https://i.ibb.co/vVHQtR1/DSCN3664.jpg) (https://ibb.co/RY9B5d2)
False (standing) breech blank is a chunk of I beam with three legs removed, top rib blank is 1/2” x 0.132” strip steel, breech plugs fabricated from 7/8” x 14 AISI 4130 steel threaded rod.
All we need now is to get the band detail chiseled in so we can slap this stuff together to make the barrel set.
Hank
-
Thought i’d jump ahead a bit and fit the breech plugs to the barrels. Glad i did. As it turned out the right barrel is tapped slightly off center. Lost the bore scope image of the plug’s crooked fit so you’ll have to take my word for it -it was ugly. It took considerable effort to get the face of the breech plug to mate to the step to make the seal complete. But, we finally got it. Bore scope image shows complete and full contact with the step:
(https://i.ibb.co/CV3kSq5/rt-bplug-fit.jpg) (https://ibb.co/frzhTbY)
How was this accomplished? By filing the face of the breech plug to make it match the step angle created by the “crooked” threads. It wasn’t off by much but just enough to create a lot of extra work. Had i waited to fit the breech plugs until after joining the barrels it would have been a mega pita trying to get this plug fit properly. Working with a single barrel greatly simplified the matter. Fitting a breech plug can be a challenge in itself let alone fitting one with threads tapped off center. Left barrel posed no problem:
(https://i.ibb.co/8rLQt0V/lft-2nd-fit.jpg) (https://ibb.co/rxRXNmJ)
Overemphasis of the importance of breech plug fit does not exist. As many will attest a breech plug fit poorly leads to problems later on. Fouling build up that can not be cleaned away by usual methods, accelerated corrosion and decreased performance are but three of the conditions created by a poorly fit breech plug. Feel free to add to the list.
Being already there, i went further ahead and shaped the breech plug hooks. The amount of offset of the right plug was lost entirely in the hook:
(https://i.ibb.co/KmHVfVT/bplug-hooks.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Tr5P7P9)
Shaping was accomplished with just a hack saw and files. Took about two hours to do both. Pint of lager in the background is optional. Final shaping takes place while fitting to the false breech.
Oh, about the chiseled bands? Dropped the idea in favor of a single wedding band design:
(https://i.ibb.co/tLcgpL0/bbl-bands.jpg) (https://ibb.co/KK7dxKt)
In the next posting we’ll get the barrels set up for regulating then weld (braze) them together.
Hank
-
Thus enters the regulator to mess things up. Maybe? The barrels, as they sit now, can not be regulated to standard distance. What’s standard distance? Generally between 25 and 30 yards is the point at which the shot column from both barrels converge. Beyond that a shot column crosses the line of sight meaning the left shot column will impact to the right of POA, right shot column to the left. Standard distance is a relatively modern normal. Relatively modern meaning it was adopted a couple centuries ago give or take a few years.
So what’s the problem? To regulate a set of barrels they must be positioned so the center line of each bore inclines slightly toward the line of sight. Degree of inclination sets the convergent (standard) distance. Decreasing incline increases distance, increasing incline decreases distance. Both barrels must be aligned precisely to achieve standard distance. And the problem is: Difference between barrel breech width and muzzle width is too great to allow regulating to standard distance. In other words, the width across the flats at the breech is much bigger than the width of both barrels at the muzzle. This creates excessive incline setting the convergent point at less than 7 yards as determined by laser bore sighting:
(https://i.ibb.co/bXHTCjJ/DSCN3685.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JHxVGWQ)
(https://i.ibb.co/m9FhVP0/boresight-reg.jpg) (https://ibb.co/X7kFrGD)
This places the point of impact at 25 yards nearly a foot to the left and right of the line of sight. Totally unacceptable by today’s standard.
But, that is today’s standard using precisely machined round barrels. We’re building this barrel set using replica octagon/round swamped barrels, a design far removed from today’s standard. It’s common knowledge that early English doubles had technical and mechanical issues. Have i replicated one of these issues? The issue being extremely short distance shot column convergent point? Now i wonder at what distance does the shot column(s) of the Bailes 1760 barrels converge?
More material can be removed from adjoining flats to decrease incline but this would thin the barrel wall at the breech to provide minimal gain in distance. We won’t do that but do have options: (1) leave the barrels as is and learn how to shoot it with non standard shot column convergence; (2) start over with new barrel blanks and change the barrel finish dimensions to remove the issue completely; (3) scrap the project, sit on the porch and drink beer.
Decisions, decisions.
Hank
-
I can tell you I had no trouble smashing skeets with the 1760 era Griffin I had the chance to shoot. I would assume they need to be pinched together somewhere around the midway point so the bores are parallel for a short distance. If you have to remove some material in that area I'd do it. (with a file)
All my old SXS flint shotguns shot to point of aim.
-
I think Mike Brooks opinion from a month ago about a whole herd of craftspeople is probably right and Mr.Bailes was an agent/contractor.
A pair of locks then would have probably been expensive but I have no idea about real cost.Lynton McKenzie told me that a pair of high end flintlocks could take the entire salary of a degreed teacher at a university.THAT would never be accepted here in the "colonies"at any point in time.I used to get requests from time to time for pairs of locks and used the L&R externals and 2 sets of Mantons which were made in moulds using the antique locks as masters and it took a good bit of time to get the Mantons to the point where locks could be started and
the mechanisms that make them useful had to be fabricated and that was labor intensive and I hope good locks can be found or made for this job.
Bob Roller
-
Hank, if my math is correct, using a 30 inch sight radius you need .400 correction total! That’s a bunch! How thick is the beech wall in the chamber area? I want to stress again that wall thickness must measured and not calculated from OD - ID divided by 2. Anyway, it looks to me like you will need a smaller breech along with spacing between the barrels at the muzzle to gain that much correction.
Bob
-
Hank, another way to look at this is the center bore to center bore, setup so they are exactly the same at the breech and muzzle, in theory should hit at that point and spread at 25 yards. If that is 2 inches you need 1 inch correction at 25 yard on each barrel. Thats .062 total or .031 on each barrel. If I’m thinking correctly on this, it should have been fairly easy to calculate while making the barrels.
-
I can tell you I had no trouble smashing skeets with the 1760 era Griffin I had the chance to shoot. I would assume they need to be pinched together somewhere around the midway point so the bores are parallel for a short distance. If you have to remove some material in that area I'd do it. (with a file)
All my old SXS flint shotguns shot to point of aim.
There will be no problem busting clays with it now Mike. I did file the flats. Read on to hear all about it.
As mentioned in the previous post it was stated that, “as they sit now the barrels can not be regulated to standard distance” and that i would not file adjoining flats more to make ‘em fit closer. While the first part was a true statement, i made myself a liar concerning the second part. After much deliberation it was back to the shaping jig for some judicious hand filing and fitting. An additional 0.005” was removed from each flat then it was back to bore sighting. Knowing a total 0.010” was not enough to make up the difference, a tapered wood shim was inserted between the barrels at the muzzle:
(https://i.ibb.co/4j22WjJ/DSCN3709.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gDddyD6)
Gap between barrels was adjusted by moving the shim up and down. Convergent point was checked at 12 and 25 yards by trial and error until there was convergence at 25 yards. Final shim setting at 12 yards:
(https://i.ibb.co/6D8zyft/DSCN3708.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gtdNrBW)
And at 25 yards:
(https://i.ibb.co/M77MbL1/DSCN3704.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8996JVx)
Weak batteries in the bore sights and broad daylight make for a less than perfect image but still it’s not a good idea to look the lasers in the eye even at 25 yards:
(https://i.ibb.co/41PdVFV/DSCN3706.jpg) (https://ibb.co/LNn5Z0Z)
Gap between the barrels was measured and as it turned out, we need a 0.062” shim at the muzzle to attain convergence at 25 yards. Armed with this new data, it was back to the shop to make the shim but not sure i will use this particular part:
(https://i.ibb.co/LShPpHw/DSCN3703.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dBJcKx9)
It fits between the barrels at the muzzle like this:
(https://i.ibb.co/f9HHL31/DSCN3694.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ZSxx7QL)
It also functions as the loading rod keeper:
(https://i.ibb.co/HBtxmgz/DSCN3698.jpg) (https://ibb.co/yd6YLsy)
So, it took 0.072” total correction to make the barrels converge at 25 yards, which is pretty dang close to Bob W’s calculated 0.062” correction:
Hank, another way to look at this is the center bore to center bore, setup so they are exactly the same at the breech and muzzle, in theory should hit at that point and spread at 25 yards. If that is 2 inches you need 1 inch correction at 25 yard on each barrel. Thats .062 total or .031 on each barrel. If I’m thinking correctly on this, it should have been fairly easy to calculate while making the barrels.
Bob, it was calculated prior to making the barrels using bore center line reference. Had the barrels been made to exact specifications regulating would have been much simpler. However, much of the shaping was done by hand causing considerable deviation from specified dimensions. Oh, wall thickness at the breech after removing the additional 0.005” measures 0.206” left, 0.200” right at the minimum of both barrels.
I think Mike Brooks opinion from a month ago about a whole herd of craftspeople is probably right and Mr.Bailes was an agent/contractor.
A pair of locks then would have probably been expensive but I have no idea about real cost.Lynton McKenzie told me that a pair of high end flintlocks could take the entire salary of a degreed teacher at a university.THAT would never be accepted here in the "colonies"at any point in time.I used to get requests from time to time for pairs of locks and used the L&R externals and 2 sets of Mantons which were made in moulds using the antique locks as masters and it took a good bit of time to get the Mantons to the point where locks could be started and
the mechanisms that make them useful had to be fabricated and that was labor intensive and I hope good locks can be found or made for this job.
Bob Roller
Not to worry Bob. We'll use only the best parts to make the locks no matter if store bought or hand made. Too much pride in quality and workmanship to let anything else happen.
This is new territory to me -first time making barrels, first time joining and regulating barrels to make a set. I have built many SxS double flints but with barrels from junk breech loaders that were already joined, and presumably, properly regulated. I’m learning a lot and still have a lot yet to learn but i’m having tons of fun with this project in the meantime. We're gonna build it!
Hank
-
I would agree with Mike that in original barrel sets that the mating barrel surfaces were likely filed so that they could be pinched together and be more parallel to achieve the desired point of impact. Filing would be zero at the breech and tapering to some point 1/3 to 1/2 way to muzzle then tapering back to zero at the muzzle. I’m sure you could calculate the necessary depth of cut at your chosen pinch point.
You have a heck of a project going here. You may soon be in demand making barrel sets.
Good luck……Lynn
-
Thanks Lynn. This is the most complex project ever and it's stretching my engineering and gun making capabilities. That's a good thing. It's a welcomed challenge.
As for regulating barrels, Delbert Whitman Jr. & Reid Bryant posted an excellent article on the Shooting Sportsman web site a while back. The page is now missing some pics but i have them on file:
(https://i.ibb.co/TrZnR59/bench1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/KmYQ7HT)
(https://i.ibb.co/Q91VX1K/bench2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/H7kyXkH)
These show packing between barrels to help bring them into alignment. Top top and bottom ribs obviously hide the packing once installed. The Bailes barrel set has no bottom rib. Here's the link to the article https://shootingsportsman.com/barrel-regulation/ (https://shootingsportsman.com/barrel-regulation/) if you care to have a look at it.
Hank
-
A very interesting article. It makes sense to pinch in the barrels to the spacer blocks and braise them.
Do you have underside and muzzle end view of the Bailes barrels? That would tell us alot.
Thanks for the article.
-
I have seen no visible spacing blocks on barrels without a bottom rib. I had the barrels apart 2X on my old flint english SXS to clean up and resolder. There were no spacers of any kind.
-
A very interesting article. It makes sense to pinch in the barrels to the spacer blocks and braise them.
Do you have underside and muzzle end view of the Bailes barrels? That would tell us alot.
Thanks for the article.
You're welcome Lynn. No pics of original Bailes but we do have pics of the new barrel set posted below.
I have seen no visible spacing blocks on barrels without a bottom rib. I had the barrels apart 2X on my old flint english SXS to clean up and resolder. There were no spacers of any kind.
Nope. No spacers. Having torn down many old barrel sets i have yet to see spacers in any of them. Most have what looks like clay packed between the barrels. Whatever works i guess.
We now have the barrels regulated and joined with top rib installed:
(https://i.ibb.co/bmyscGZ/rib-nstalled.jpg) (https://ibb.co/LRqxVsW)
After brazing the barrels together, a new spacer was made and installed at the muzzle using low temp silver solder:
(https://i.ibb.co/z5g8bkK/spcr-installed.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fSW8tcm)
This spacer mics 0.075”, 0.013” thicker than the original. This puts convergence closer to 30 yards, which is ok by me. It also serves as the loading rod keeper. Originally the top rib was to be fashioned from strip steel. Shaping and fitting was problematic so strip steel was dropped in favor of square bar stock. A quick and dirty jig was set up on the band saw to cut the square stock in half on the diagonal:
(https://i.ibb.co/M5GrWGV/sq-bar-cut.jpg) (https://ibb.co/x8fWPfj)
One piece was used for the top rib:
(https://i.ibb.co/Yb6qRM7/rib-fit.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WsQYxwW)
After fitting to the barrels, the new rib was “clamped” to the barrels using nails and tightly twisted wire loops:
(https://i.ibb.co/pjZ01Jz/rib-clamp.jpg) (https://ibb.co/GQkxdc2)
Then the rib was soft soldered to the barrels:
(https://i.ibb.co/br4Z5zb/solder-mess.jpg) (https://ibb.co/MRz4kMB)
What a mess. Took the better part of a day to get this mess cleaned off. Next time i’ll use thin gauge solder instead of the heavy stuff. But, it cleaned up ok finding only a few minor pin holes in the solder seam. Not sure what to do about that. May try to fill them in or maybe just leave it as is. One would have to look pretty hard to see ‘em after bluing the barrels.
So here it is, the barrel set complete, in the white and ready for the next phase of the project. Muzzle view:
(https://i.ibb.co/Nsj1RW1/muzzle-rib-y-spacer.jpg) (https://ibb.co/47Tsk4s)
Top side at the bands:
(https://i.ibb.co/SXKFw5M/DSCN3742.jpg) (https://ibb.co/LzCVdYc)
Bottom side at the bands:
(https://i.ibb.co/cvPyQ2L/DSCN3747.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9vJpWyt)
Bottom side octagon:
(https://i.ibb.co/8Mr4yBC/DSCN3748.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Tc4qQTf)
Top side octagon:
(https://i.ibb.co/d6Gby1L/DSCN3731.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Dk5Gns8)
We gave the new barrel set a ring test. If good, the barrels will ring and reverberate as a bell with a sharp, clear tone after being struck. If there is a broken tone or dull thud then the barrels are bad and can not be used. This barrel set passed the test.
https://youtu.be/Mxaxyhh0yRA (https://youtu.be/Mxaxyhh0yRA)
Only six more things to do with the barrels: Second proof test to make sure they hold together after firing; engraving and stamping; add loading rod pipes; add the sight; add the barrel key keeper; final sanding, polishing and bluing. Proof test comes first then engraving and stamping. The remainder happens as the build progresses.
We’ll start on the locks in the next phase of the project. Thanks for watching!
Hank
-
At the end of this dissertation on the barrels there has appeared a picture of a record album titled "Country Gentlemen 25 Years".
The "Gentlemen" are one of my all time favorite groups in this genre and their former banjo player,Eddie Adcock called yesterday to
see if my wife and I are OK.I also knew the mandolin player,John Duffey who passed away in 1996.How did this happen?
Bob Roller
-
Hank, barrels are looking good. How about some specs? Length, width, weight and I don’t remember the bore.
Bob
-
At the end of this dissertation on the barrels there has appeared a picture of a record album titled "Country Gentlemen 25 Years".
The "Gentlemen" are one of my all time favorite groups in this genre and their former banjo player,Eddie Adcock called yesterday to
see if my wife and I are OK.I also knew the mandolin player,John Duffey who passed away in 1996.How did this happen?
Bob Roller
Sorry to hear about the loss of your friend Mr. Roller. As for how it happened? Beats me.
Hank, barrels are looking good. How about some specs? Length, width, weight and I don’t remember the bore.
Bob
Thanks for the compliment Bob. It means a lot coming from a seasoned barrel maker. Here's some specs:
(https://i.ibb.co/dQvQCD8/specs.jpg) (https://ibb.co/SKgKYBF)
No wait -that's not it. Here's the real @#$%/!!:
11 bore (.75 cal), swamped octagon/round, true cylinder bore both barrels, joined SxS by brazed seam and single rib.
OAL: 33 1/2"
Weight: 4.2 pounds
Width: 2.3" @ breech, 2.0" @ wedding bands, 2.075 @ muzzle
Barrel blanks started out at 6 1/2 pounds each. Finished barrels weighed in heavier than preferred but proper stocking will create a well handling double.
Hank
-
Not had a lot of time to spend on the project lately so today was designated William Bailes double day. Had two of the trigger guard parts cut and shaped and decided to get the finial cut and shaped then get everything soldered together. The Bailes 1760 is trimmed in silver. We’ll sand cast a silver trigger guard so a master part is needed and that’s what we’re doing -making a master trigger guard. Here’s the original finial:
(https://i.ibb.co/MZCHFjv/1760-BOTTOM-TRIM.png) (https://ibb.co/LYZyVqF)
Started off with a chunk of 1/8” thick strip steel with pattern attached:
(https://i.ibb.co/sgQHkPz/DSCN3752.jpg) (https://ibb.co/p1ZyGP5)
Removed the majority of metal on the band saw then with files and a rotary tool and cut off wheel removed the rest of it. Final shaping completed using files and sandpaper:
(https://i.ibb.co/t4qB4wC/DSCN3761.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xD1hDK5)
Here’s the parts ready for assembly:
(https://i.ibb.co/HhFtpch/DSCN3765.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hY7B1GY)
Parts were laid out against the stock pattern to find angles and dimensions before soldering them together:
(https://i.ibb.co/HxSPhx3/DSCN3767.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ZYjg2Y7)
Once we had the correct angles and position the tang and bow was clamped down and soldered together:
(https://i.ibb.co/q5VrDhP/DSCN3763.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Wtj2H7Y)
Same procedure followed for the finial. Once soldered the assembly was again checked against the stock pattern to make sure everything is in proper location:
(https://i.ibb.co/nnpCtBg/DSCN3772.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4Ykd32m)
Finial is impressive:
(https://i.ibb.co/Fg5Ht43/DSCN3778.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5BrKVh4)
Had to fill in a few voids and uneven spots. Good ‘ole Bondo worked just fine. Final sanding and polishing followed. Adding tabs and protective coating finished the fabrication:
(https://i.ibb.co/ZX1zRh5/DSCN3779.jpg) (https://ibb.co/r0f2KZY)
The Bailes 1760 trigger guard master is ready for the sand mould:
(https://i.ibb.co/NKH2Xwr/DSCN3782.jpg) (https://ibb.co/zZ0V1KF)
(https://i.ibb.co/C5LrRtR/DSCN3784.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0j5wHXH)
Had this part been made as an actual steel trigger guard then everything would have been arc welded together instead of soft soldering, filling any voids with additional weld. Using Bondo on a finished part is pure blasphemy if not idiotic. Since this a master part for use in sand casting, shortcuts were taken to provide a perfect finish, smooth seams and uninterrupted radii. Any imperfection in the master will show up in the part cast from it so the master must be as close to perfect as possible. The first cast silver trigger guard will tell the story but I think we nailed it with this master.
Hank
-
Looks pretty flat and two dimensional. Did you have castings pulled from original guns of the period in hand to help guide you?
Jim
-
That front finial isn't going to sand cast well. You might consider sculpting the front finial the rest of the way and find somebody to investment cast it.
-
When are the parts that make it a gun,the locks going to start? I can't make any parts now but can be a kibitzer ;D ;D
Bob Roller
-
Looks pretty flat and two dimensional. Did you have castings pulled from original guns of the period in hand to help guide you?
Jim
You have a keen eye Jim. Finial is near net shape. Can't tell from the pics but the bow has some cross section taper. Tang is flat with a small radius on the top corners. It's this way by design to allow plenty material for final shaping and polishing.
That front finial isn't going to sand cast well. You might consider sculpting the front finial the rest of the way and find somebody to investment cast it.
Mike, this will be my first time casting silver so i'll take your word for it. Been reading everything i can find concerning casting silver and so far the key take away is silver can be a bit of a pain if unfamiliar with it. And it likes to shrink. Sometimes a lot. We'll be experiencing the joy first hand sometime soon. May have to change the master. Maybe? I dunno. Had to slash the project budget so outside sourcing is not an option.
When are the parts that make it a gun,the locks going to start? I can't make any parts now but can be a kibitzer ;D ;D
Bob Roller
We're getting there Bob. Need to get the piddilty stuff out of the way first. Feel free to kibitz away my friend.
Hank
-
I would be concerned about having enough stock to get a proper shape. You might have enough, but it looks awfully thin.
I think I would basically shape out the entire form, but just leave a touch of stock on the pattern.
-
I will refrain from the kibitzing of a project I can't start and admire the ambition shown in it and making a lathe to turn the barrels
is more than impressive.
Bob Roller
-
The front finial will not fill with sand casting. Probably better off leaving it square then shaping it as you have done your master. You have a lot of sculpting to do there too. Be aware that silver work hardens rapidly.
-
Just a late not on barrel joining;
Many originals were filed flat where they joined, so that the barrel walls were Half the thickness at that point.
This meant that the two barrel walls together made up the required thickness, each barrel adding strength to the other.
This kept the overall width as barrow as possible, with no spacers at all.
Best,
Rich.
-
I would be concerned about having enough stock to get a proper shape. You might have enough, but it looks awfully thin.
I think I would basically shape out the entire form, but just leave a touch of stock on the pattern.
Parts made from 1/8" thick strip. May be too thin. We'll see how it goes.
The front finial will not fill with sand casting. Probably better off leaving it square then shaping it as you have done your master. You have a lot of sculpting to do there too. Be aware that silver work hardens rapidly.
Thought about leaving the finial square. May be further ahead to make a new master and forget about trying to make this one work. Might be able to say i know what i'm doing after this adventure in silver? But for now i'll just say "sure would be nice to know what i'm doing". And yes, there will be a lot of delicate filing to get the whole thing into shape.
I will refrain from the kibitzing of a project I can't start and admire the ambition shown in it and making a lathe to turn the barrels
is more than impressive.
Bob Roller
Thanks Bob but we can still have fun with it!
Just a late not on barrel joining;
Many originals were filed flat where they joined, so that the barrel walls were Half the thickness at that point.
This meant that the two barrel walls together made up the required thickness, each barrel adding strength to the other.
This kept the overall width as barrow as possible, with no spacers at all.
Best,
Rich.
I've torn down dozens of old barrel sets from damascus to modern steel and have yet to find a spacer between barrels. The most recent tear down, a Parker 10 bore set, had what looked like some type of clay packed between the barrels.
Hank
-
I keep wondering why you simply don't cast a strip of silver and make it into your trigger guard? You did it with a piece of steel, do it with silver.
I am sure there is a good reason why you don't, but I have no experience with this this.
Fleener
-
I keep wondering why you simply don't cast a strip of silver and make it into your trigger guard? You did it with a piece of steel, do it with silver.
I am sure there is a good reason why you don't, but I have no experience with this this.
Fleener
Yup, there's a reason Fleener. It could be made using silver strip just as the master pictured above and soldered together. I'm not good at soldering silver. I don't know anybody good enough at soldering silver to make the seams "invisible". I'm sure a good silversmith can do it, i just don't have access to one that can. So, the short answer is the trigger guard needs to be seamless. Casting it as one piece does that.
Hank
-
Started looking into trigger guard investment casting after Mr. Brooks suggested outsourcing. One thing led to another and another then i ran across an Autodesk Instructable put together by a gal that says she knows Jim Kibler. This is the link instructables.com/Silcone-Mold-Making-for-Investment-Casting-Pendant/ if you care to take a look at it. With the help of videos and many other sources of information i now have working knowledge of vacuum assisted investment casting. We can build the equipment needed and be well on the way to successfully casting silver. So, a special thank you goes to Mike Brooks and katwerre for sowing the seed of insight that guided me to the path of discovery.
What else is happening? Started work on the triggers. I prefer to have the triggers ready to go before starting on the locks. (Sorry Mr. Roller, we’ll get to the locks as soon as possible.) Prototype triggers were hacked out of 1/4” steel plate using an angle grinder and finishing up with files. After doing some layout each blade was ground to near final thickness:
(https://i.ibb.co/Sm1rmpx/DSCN3793.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JpbQpPd)
Shape of the shoe was drawn and excess metal hogged out on the band saw and bench grinder.
(https://i.ibb.co/4fZ7fCL/DSCN3804.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kygxyzT)
Then it was on with the files to bring everything down to size:
(https://i.ibb.co/Yy2N9qf/DSCN3812.jpg) (https://ibb.co/RB2gnVQ)
After final shaping a trigger plate was crafted from 1/8” thick strip steel and the triggers fit to it:
(https://i.ibb.co/6yRJcT1/0706231548a.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Rgp4GsB)
The trigger assembly was placed against the stock pattern with a lock and the trigger guard master in approximate final location with a pic of the original below it:
(https://i.ibb.co/ydLgZrX/0706231643a-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/rFn5zVm)
Comparing the prototype to the pic of the original brings out several problem areas. First, the trigger plate is too short. Let’s look at another Bailes double from the same time frame (ca 1760):
(https://i.ibb.co/VxCt11G/BAILES-MORPHY-T-PLATE.png) (https://ibb.co/ZSgVjjr)
Notice how the trigger plate begins at the bow/final junction and ends at the beginning of the tang/bow junction. The prototype is clearly too short. I simply messed up on that. Trigger shoe shape is pretty close with both trigger shoes being too long. Also, the web radius is too wide at each trigger shoe transition. A pattern for late 18th century triggers was used for prototyping and they’re clearly not a good match. This is quite apparent by comparing the pic of the original to the prototype above. But, the trigger assembly is a prototype. Where to go from here? Make the trigger plate longer, shorten the trigger height and adjust the web radius to better replicate the original. At least we’re not starting completely over. That’s why we make prototypes. See anything else that needs attention?
Hank
-
Lots of the English guns I've had apart had long trigger plates the extended a good way under the trigger guard with a slot that corresponds with a hook on the trigger guard. I have one by Nock somewhere around here. I'll see if I can find it tomorrow.
-
Got the triggers built. A bit more polishing and they’re ready to drop into the stock. This set doesn’t look a whole lot different from the prototype but with shorter shoes and a slightly different angle to the blades. Trigger plate is longer and should fit the stock perfectly:
(https://i.ibb.co/VLkdR0k/new-triggers.jpg) (https://ibb.co/TwNZ6DN)
Too bad there is no commercially available double barrel false breech or standing breech or “thing behind the barrels”. No matter what it’s called the only alternative is to make a double size version and face the challenge it presents head on. I usually craft this part from C channel after removing one leg. This works great for round barrels but not so great for octagon barrels. Given the corners must be shaped to match the profile of the barrel flats, the extreme web thickness of C channel would create an awkward transition between the face and tang of the false breech. So, we’ll scratch this one out using 1/4” and 3/16” strip steel welded together. Did i mention the challenge this presents? We start off by making a face pattern using a soft wood strip 1/4” thick:
(https://i.ibb.co/sP3MLgH/wood-pat.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FW7jGhV)
(https://i.ibb.co/2NXtrZF/wood-pat1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WtSyXVH)
After shaping the pattern to match the hooks, hook outlines are drawn on a length of 1/4” thick strip steel. Holes for the hooks are then shaped in the steel:
(https://i.ibb.co/W0Fz7Jz/holes.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xYGgwTg)
After fitting the face to the hooks and barrels (this takes a long time to do!), the hooks are ground flush to the back side of the face:
(https://i.ibb.co/qr44Kdp/face-fit.jpg) (https://ibb.co/crpp01Q)
(https://i.ibb.co/N7phYzn/hook-grind.jpg) (https://ibb.co/b7LhdnR)
After cutting the face to approximate width, a length of 3/16” x 2” strip steel is cut to use as the tang. Grinding a bevel in the mating edges and clamping finishes the weld set up:
(https://i.ibb.co/0rxYHHw/weld-set-up.jpg) (https://ibb.co/VTsMffK)
After welding together the weld is ground flush and corners shaped to match barrel flats:
(https://i.ibb.co/fQFg7Bd/corner-shape.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JCt1P0j)
Tang outline is drawn then cut to shape:
(https://i.ibb.co/nMpfGYf/tang-layout.jpg) (https://ibb.co/yF259Z5)
(https://i.ibb.co/qjQ2t7L/cut-to-shape.jpg) (https://ibb.co/zxvtyQW)
Profile of the facet is outlined on the face and tang. Shaping of the facet begins by using a drum sleeve sander in the Dremel:
(https://i.ibb.co/84L8chY/facet-layout.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gFLgVn4)
(https://i.ibb.co/TtntQ5q/facet-layout2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fHKH37G)
More metal is removed using a cut off wheel in the Dremel. A small weld void is uncovered in the process:
(https://i.ibb.co/D5ZhKxG/hog-out-crack.jpg) (https://ibb.co/18k12Ds)
Void is filled with more weld and shaping continues:
(https://i.ibb.co/vQqrpPY/crack-fill.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0F2WTMt)
(https://i.ibb.co/dQq1sw0/almost-finished.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hKjhxJR)
Here it is 90% complete. Still have some touch up work to do but that will happen after it’s mounted to the stock with barrels in place:
(https://i.ibb.co/dMmptqY/final-shape.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jfJwz2X)
And here is the original:
(https://i.ibb.co/5KRz0qY/bailes-bonham.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HhHMSmN)
So how long did it take to make this thing? Right now there is roughly 32 hours in it. Why so much time? This is a precision fit component with the majority of work done by hand with needle files and sand paper. It has to be precision fit otherwise there will be problems later on. The face must fit the barrels and breech plug hooks with near zero tolerance. A poor fit can lead to a broken stock and/or barrels that come loose in the stock within a very short time of use. It’s well worth the time and effort to make doublety dam sure none of this happens.
Up next? Locks!
Hank
-
Looking good so far Hank. Man you really got that tang engraved quickly ;D
-
Looking good so far Hank. Man you really got that tang engraved quickly ;D
Thanks bama. The Gravely 2000 power graver is an amazing machine. Set it to automatic, turn it on and watch it go. Two minutes and it's done! ;)
Hank
-
Looks good Hank! Amazing what one can do without a mill if he really puts his mind to it.
Bob
-
Thanks Bob. Who needs a mill anyway eh?
Hank
-
Looks good Hank! Amazing what one can do without a mill if he really puts his mind to it.
Bob
And be so tired as to be almost non functional for a week >:(.Figuring out the hard way to do old tasks even when machines are on the bench never made sense to me.Bill Large never used a walk back&forth rifler in his career until we built one dedicated to32 caliber gain twist barrels and it moved on precision slides and stabilized by bearings.Getting the most work done with the least amount of S.E.A* work is my way.
Bob Roller *S.E.A. means Sweat-Effort-Aggravation.
-
Bob, my comment doesn’t apply to me! I have a fully equipped shop, 13 inch lathe, Bridgeport mill, surface grinder, 20 inch bandsaw, tool grinder…even have a shaper and die filer. ;) And believe me…I use them.
Bob
-
Looks good Hank! Amazing what one can do without a mill if he really puts his mind to it.
Bob
And be so tired as to be almost non functional for a week >:(.Figuring out the hard way to do old tasks even when machines are on the bench never made sense to me.Bill Large never used a walk back&forth rifler in his career until we built one dedicated to32 caliber gain twist barrels and it moved on precision slides and stabilized by bearings.Getting the most work done with the least amount of S.E.A* work is my way.
Bob Roller *S.E.A. means Sweat-Effort-Aggravation.
Mr. Roller, what can be said here?
Bob, my comment doesn’t apply to me! I have a fully equipped shop, 13 inch lathe, Bridgeport mill, surface grinder, 20 inch bandsaw, tool grinder…even have a shaper and die filer. ;) And believe me…I use them.
Bob
You do have a nice shop Bob. Machine tools obviously save time and effort but it's hard for me to justify the expense of store bought equipment to build the occasional gun or two. So, we'll keep on scratching out parts with the tools and equipment available no matter how long it takes. We'll keep on posting the process and steps taken to make parts like this hopefully to let others that don't have or can't afford machine tools know, and see, what can be accomplished with minimal tools and equipment.
Now, about the locks -i've decided to go with Siler internals and modify the frizzens much the same as smart dog did with his Siler to English style conversion. We'll fit L&R hammers to the tumblers and make new frizzen springs. Lock plate proper will be scratched out of steel plate. I have yet to order the lock parts so in the meantime have started construction of the investment cast equipment to cast the silver hardware for this double. Even if it doesn't make sense to some. I'll start a thread in the Shop Made Tools forum to let everyone know (and see) how this goes and keep it out of the gun building forum.
Hank
-
t sounds like you're off to a good start with the locks and using pre existing parts from the Silers and L&R is wise.Buying new machinery IS costly and now it means China like the saws recently discussed here.I bought a new Clausing tool room milling machine in 1967 and before that a heavy that,a floor model drill press in 1963. I still have the first machine I ever bought,a 12x36 Craftsman/Atlas lathe and wished I had bought a bigger lathe. did enjoy the bench work with files and small saws.A new Atlas 618 in 1964 and paid for it with the only $500 bill I ever laid eyes on and I got it from a Canadian at Friendship that year.Another nearly new 618 was given to me by the son of a deceased fr friend about 20 years ago. A 10x 36 Atlas built in 1932 with babbit bearings instead of Timkens and I have made bronze bearings for car transmissions with it and want to extend thanks to GM for making the 350 series transmissions that kept me busy using the old 10x36 to redo the stator supports that formed the back of the oil pump.A 5 minute fix for $25 ;D ;D.Germany kept me making locks for a long time and many thanks to L&R for selling the externals for their small Mantons that was well liked for target pistols there.The English styled target caplocks came later along with the schuetzen styles,again a German item as were to triggers to match.To insist on getting paid for the peculiar skills to make these parts didn't bother them one bit.
Please keep us posted on the William Bailes project.Reading about your barrel making for this job was fascinating beacuse you made a lathe to make them with. :o.
Bob Roller
PS: How many of you guys and girls are as grateful for Spell Check warnings while banging on a key board?
-
Odd, I can do all this stuff with hand tools except turn the barrels.
I've watched machinists do all these types of things with their various machinery and have noticed that for the most part I could have the job done by hand before the machinist has the job set up.
-
Mike, you said a mouth full of truth there! ;D
Even with all the machine tools I find many times it’s much easier to grab a file to finish or shape a part. But, I build single-shot cartridge guns as a hobbie and it sure is nice to be able to precisely fit the many parts using these machines.
Bob
-
Mike, you said a mouth full of truth there! ;D
Even with all the machine tools I find many times it’s much easier to grab a file to finish or shape a part. But, I build single-shot cartridge guns as a hobbie and it sure is nice to be able to precisely fit the many parts using these machines.
Bob
Yes,such as head spacing and reaming chambers,GOOD accurate dove tails and muzzle crowning for a projectile with a real base.
Viva Pope,Zichang and Freund!! ;D
Bob Roller