Author Topic: Ferguson Rifle just completed.  (Read 3785 times)

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14972
Re: Ferguson Rifle just completed.
« Reply #25 on: June 06, 2022, 01:11:29 AM »
The Rifle Shoppe's parts set/lock, works quite well. The one Taylor build sure did.
It was more than accurate enough for hunting.



« Last Edit: June 06, 2022, 01:14:56 AM by Daryl »
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears" King George V

Offline DavidC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
Re: Ferguson Rifle just completed.
« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2022, 03:04:30 AM »
I do not believe that rifles of the colonial period were fired with as tight fitting a ball as is used today. We operate with extremely cheap but superior quality measuring tools, a caliper, well beyond what riflemen had, and we have specific and consistent manufacturer data to turn to for patch and ball size to mathematically fill the gap between ball, bore, and rifling. Likely the Ferguson fired undersized balls, maybe lubed in some way, so leading wasn't as great an issue as we perceive.

Many of the famous long distance shots, like the 300-400 yard indian scout killed from Fort ligonier, even state that the shooter was firing multiple shots before a lucky hit. I think historical rifles were of acceptable accuracy for hunting distances but, considering the dearness of ball and powder on the frontier these ranges were close enough that a looser ball would have been sufficient. And since all the lauding of a rifles capability was as compared to a musket firing an unaimed and undersized ball by someone that didn't usually shoot to kill and we can see the rifle will still retain it's legendary status.

But there are more knowledgeable people here who could better inform me, or (dis)abuse me of my notions.

And mazatrol lathes have had a multi thread option since the 1980's, all you have to do is increase the thread lead with respect to the rpm or pitch and number of threads needed. But circa 1770 that musta been a right pain.

Offline alacran

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2100
Re: Ferguson Rifle just completed.
« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2022, 01:28:14 PM »
Technically, they are illegal for muzzleloading hunts in most states, or muzzleloading competition. That is why I've never had an interest in them.
i asked a friend of mine who is a retired FWC officer if he would cite someone for using one of these for hunting. (He is on this board, he might want to chip in) He said he would consider it within the spirit of a muzzleloader for hunting purposes. Unlikely most game officers would be familiar enough with them to really call you on it. Besides, it is not a light gun, I would not want to lug it around on a hunt. Probably leave that bayonet behind as well!
I agree most game officers would not be aware it is a breechloader. They would have to see you load one before they would think that something is amiss.
However I like that bayonet. it would definitely double as a hunting sword.
A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.  Frederick Douglass

Offline smart dog

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6814
Re: Ferguson Rifle just completed.
« Reply #28 on: June 06, 2022, 03:20:30 PM »
Hi,
Ferguson was not way ahead of his time.  Here is a quote from the beginning of Chapter 3 in Bailey's book "British Military Flintlock Rifles".

"The screwplug design that Patrick Ferguson adopted [not invented] for his breech-loading rifle was by no means an innovation in 1776.  The basic idea dates back to at least the last quarter of the 17th century, when it was utilized by Daniel Lagatz of Danzig, and it was produced, in a version extremely close to what Ferguson later used, by French engineer Isaac de la Chaumette in 1700 and 1704. De la Chaumette actually received English patent No. 434 in August 1721 fir this and related mechanisms, and various English gunmakers including Lewis and James Barbar, Joseph Cookson, and James Freeman produced "Ferguson" rifles during the first half of the 18th century, as did Penterman the elder in Utrecht.  The fact that Ferguson was allowed a patent can only serve to illustrate the ignorance of those who granted it."

La Chaumette's thread design was the same as Ferguson's requiring only one full turn to expose the chamber and a second to remove the plug.  The all metal breech and action used by Chaumette and Cookson, like the turn-off pistols at the time, was superior to Ferguson's design because it did not suffer the fatal weakness of the wooden stock about the breech that plagued the Ferguson. It would have been almost impossible for the British government/gunmaker/tradesmen partnership that constituted the ordnance system to produce sufficient numbers of Fergusons to outfit a large proportion of the British army.  The weak links in the chain of tradesmen producing arms were the barrel and lock makers.  They were the most skilled and technically proficient workers in that chain and their skills were in demand not just in the arms industry but in a host of precision metal works. They could go where the money was so the gun makers who agreed to make Fergusons would have to pay for the precision work required to make the guns, and pay dearly.  It was actually a matter of national security for the British government to keep lock and barrel makers in the firearms industry, particularly during time of peace, because they could work at many different jobs.  The original Fergusons cost 4 pounds sterling each at a time when a short land Brown Bess cost 1 pound 12 shillings, almost 1/3 the price.  Moreover, the Ferguson's required superfine rifle powder that cost over 7 pounds a barrel compared with 1 pound 5 shillings for a barrel of musket powder.  The Ferguson was almost certainly designed to shoot the standard 0.615 carbine ball, however, my Ferguson made from TRS parts, shoots terribly with that round.  It requires a larger ball to tighten groups.  Ricky Roberts and Bryan Brown demonstrate good success with the carbine ball in their rifles using TRS parts but I cannot with mine.  It makes me wonder if there is variance in the manufacture of those barrels and breeches.  Finally, with proper lubing of the breech threads and careful loading, I can shoot up to 30 rounds before fouling starts to bind the screw plug. It is easy to quickly clean the plug with water and lube it again but under fighting conditions, there are so many ways you could screw up the loading procedure and bind your breech after just a few shots.  Moreover, two turns and your screw plug drops out.  That would be a disaster during battle.  The Ferguson rifle was in no way ahead of its time.  What was ahead of its time for the British army was Patrick Ferguson's effort and ability to get the army to form a dedicated rifle unit, and one using a breech loading rifle. 

dave   
"The main accomplishment of modern economics is to make astrology look good."

Offline Mike Brooks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13167
    • Mike Brooks Gunmaker
Re: Ferguson Rifle just completed.
« Reply #29 on: June 06, 2022, 06:14:37 PM »
I owned a English breech loader ca. 1670 for a while a few years ago.  Half stock, long barrel with a cannon muzzle rifled in 12 bore.  Was loaded through the bottom of the barrel by unscrewing a pipe plug and dropping in a ball then filling the powder chamber.
NEW WEBSITE! www.mikebrooksflintlocks.com
Say, any of you boys smithies? Or, if not smithies per se, were you otherwise trained in the metallurgic arts before straitened circumstances forced you into a life of aimless wanderin'?

Offline James Rogers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3106
  • James Rogers
    • Fowling Piece
Re: Ferguson Rifle just completed.
« Reply #30 on: June 06, 2022, 06:30:10 PM »
I owned a English breech loader ca. 1670 for a while a few years ago.  Half stock, long barrel with a cannon muzzle rifled in 12 bore.  Was loaded through the bottom of the barrel by unscrewing a pipe plug and dropping in a ball then filling the powder chamber.

And I kick myself about once a month for not getting that one from you !

Offline DavidC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
Re: Ferguson Rifle just completed.
« Reply #31 on: June 06, 2022, 07:16:30 PM »
Thanks for the input on the Ferguson Dave, your background rarely disappoints. I'll have to be careful of regurgitating anything i "know" about that gun. Any thoughts on my view on firing of undersized balls historically? Feel free to PM if it seems out of place here.

Offline D. Taylor Sapergia

  • Member 3
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12524
Re: Ferguson Rifle just completed.
« Reply #32 on: June 06, 2022, 08:25:48 PM »
When I built the Ferguson Daryl has illustrated above, I took TRS' advice and bought a .650" ball mould from Ray Rapine.  Using pure lead balls from this mould, and a full chamber of 2Fg GOEX behind the ball, the rifle shot perfectly to the sights without any filing at 100 meters.  I never did try the flip up leaf rear sight to see where it shot, but I suspect it was for 200 meters.
D. Taylor Sapergia
www.sapergia.blogspot.com

Art is not an object.  It is the excitement inspired by the object.

Offline smart dog

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6814
Re: Ferguson Rifle just completed.
« Reply #33 on: June 06, 2022, 08:32:05 PM »
Hi David,
I didn't respond to your question about shooting undersized ball because I don't have a good answer that I can understand myself.  All the documentation about the Ferguson indicates it was designed to shoot carbine ball (0.615), which makes sense because why would ordnance not try to standardize ammunition rather than make a gun shooting something completely different.  Anyway, the original Ferguson in the Morristown, NJ museum measures 0.607" across the lands and 0.648" across the grooves.  My TRS made barrel and action measures about the same across the lands and just 0.640" across the grooves at the muzzle.  So a 0.615" ball clearly won't roll down the barrel but it also doesn't fill the grooves unless it expands into the grooves on firing.  Recovered balls after shooting clearly show deep marks of the rifling on the ball so it likely is expanding somewhat when fired.  However, I get no accuracy with that ammunition.  I cannot keep a group within 8-9" from a bench at 50 yards.  When I use a 0.648" ball, those groups are under 2.5" and regardless of how many shots fired.  Fouling in the barrel and chamber does not compromise accuracy  at least when using 3F Swiss powder, which may be the closest to German superfine rifle powder used in the original guns. Leading, even with the larger ball is not an issue and the Ferguson behaves just like any of the later black powder breech loaders.  As I wrote previously, Roberts and Brown report very good accuracy with their TRS made Ferguson rifles using the 0615" ball but I cannot. I wonder if perhaps my lead is harder than that used by Roberts and Brown.  Dead soft lead might be critical for the bullet to fully expand into the grooves but my lead is soft based on a thumb nail test. 

dave       
"The main accomplishment of modern economics is to make astrology look good."

Offline DavidC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
Re: Ferguson Rifle just completed.
« Reply #34 on: June 07, 2022, 03:07:08 AM »
Dave,

How about in general? This notion of historical long rifles using undersized ball and patch combos, consistent with the undersized balls used in muskets, was revived in my mind after watching a Townsend video from a few years back. The video features Simeon England and he casually mentions his interpretation of contemporary sources to indicate many, or most, rifles were fired with undersized balls and patches that don't fit the numbers we match today. Would you agree with that impression in any form or is Simeon perhaps seeing limited sources or some observation bias by only noting outliers?

I've been thinking of this more since trying jojoba oil as a lube for it's supposed similarity with sperm whale oil and my experience was pretty poor, good accuracy but loads that needed a mallet from stiff fouling after 1-2 shots.

Offline Curtis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
  • Missouri
Re: Ferguson Rifle just completed.
« Reply #35 on: June 10, 2022, 08:24:50 AM »
Great looking gun, Deepcreek!   ;)

Curtis
Curtis Allinson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sometimes, late at night when I am alone in the inner sanctum of my workshop and no one else can see, I sand things using only my fingers for backing

Offline yulzari

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: Ferguson Rifle just completed.
« Reply #36 on: June 20, 2022, 06:51:52 PM »
Being too lazy to do my own research, please someone explain the vertical screw breach plug thingy. How is it used? How does it not leak combustion gases?
Bless you for confessing to the laziness! I get so tired of people whose question sub-text is ‘I can’t be bothered to do a search so please do it for me.’Honesty appreciated.
Nothing suceeds like a beakless budgie