Author Topic: Lighter than standard loading rods?  (Read 3531 times)

Naphtali

  • Guest
Lighter than standard loading rods?
« on: October 31, 2012, 07:07:31 PM »
I do not appreciate hardwood or fiberglass rods. Regardless what testing appears to show, I am convinced that rod material, and firing residues on-and-in the rod, will abrade barrels abnormally at muzzles. 

I no longer use thimbles beneath my Kodiak Safari rifle to hold its [plastic] loading rod. Recoil causes the rod to move muzzle-ward between six and eight inches with the first shot. It then waves and vibrates. . . . Not beneficial to continuing consistency from a regulated double rifle. Solid surface hardened stainless steel rod solves the abrasion problem but does nothing for recoil induced rod movement.

How have those of you who shoot BIG BORE rifles with heavy loads deal with recoil rod movement I have tried to describe? I have considered using hollow rod, or hollow titanium alloy rod, or fluted rod - that is, reduce rod weight by deleting metal while retaining rod hardness and rigidity. But I don't believe such a rod is available.

Offline Acer Saccharum

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19311
    • Thomas  A Curran
Re: Lighter than standard loading rods?
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2012, 07:48:52 PM »
How about anodized aluminum tube, or an arrow shaft converted to a loading rod? A retention spring inside the fore end may help somewhat.
Tom Curran's web site : http://monstermachineshop.net
Ramrod scrapers are all sold out.

Offline Jerry V Lape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
Re: Lighter than standard loading rods?
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2012, 08:29:01 PM »
Since you don't seem to be concerned with historical correctness for this rifle, why not make a little spring clip that latches over the end of the rod at the muzzle and attach it to the lower rib between the barrels?   Make the latch so it approaches the rod tip from the side so you can easily flex it aside (versus vertically which would be blocked by the barrels).  I think it could be made very small and unobtrusive.  Or you could use the traditional method with a spoon (spring) bearing against the rod back in the forend area usually hidden inside the forend.   
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 01:35:22 AM by Jerry V Lape »

Offline WadePatton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Tennessee
Re: Lighter than standard loading rods?
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2012, 06:52:24 PM »
if you are $eriou$ about the titanium i may be able to find a source. many of my pals fabricate with ti.  But it will be pricey.  Also some alloys of ti aren't that hard-others, like 6/4 are quite hard-you'll have to TIG ends onto it.

what diameter and length?  

PM is better, less "pollution" of the forum.

also, i like the spring/clip idea better...or "warp" your rod a bit.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 06:53:47 PM by WadePatton »
Hold to the Wind

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Lighter than standard loading rods?
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2012, 07:58:51 PM »
Neither the 3/8" rod in my Kodiak, nor the 3/8" to 1/2" tapered rod my 14 bore move more than 1/2" under recoil (both hickory).  The 14 bore does move that amount, while the Kodiak rod doesn't move at all. Their sung fit and non-straight warped tension in the pipes and fore end prevents this, I assume.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2012, 01:43:37 AM by Daryl »

Steve-In

  • Guest
Re: Lighter than standard loading rods?
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2012, 05:26:20 PM »
My 10 bore's rod does not move.  It is held in place by a small piece soldered to the rib.  The tip goes behind this and cannot move forward.  Same on my 18 bore.  To remove either ramrod you need to bend the rod enough for the tip to clear.

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Lighter than standard loading rods?
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2012, 05:44:49 PM »
Most or many original shotguns have a tip-blocking step, as Steve noted.