William Bailes double barrel replica

[Hank01]

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:



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   

[bobw]

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

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Why do you feel the need for breech plugs that are 1 1/4" long when 1/2" long plugs work so well?

[Hank01]

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

[Mike Brooks]

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.

[Cody Tetachuk]

 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??.

[Hank01]

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

[Cody Tetachuk]

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.

[Hank01]

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

[44-henry]

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.

[Mike Brooks]

Well, you obviously enjoy doing everything the hard way! 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.

[Pukka Bundook]

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!

[Bob Roller]

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 Tetachuk]

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

[Hank01]

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! 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:



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:



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:



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:



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

[Bob Roller]

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

[Hank01]

shhhh... Not so loud Bob. i was hoping to keep that a secret. Now everybody will want some! >insert belly laugh here<

Hank

[bobw]

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

[Hank01]

I really appreciate your feedback Bob. Thanks! The follow rest is rigid. This pic gives a little better view of it:
 


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



   

[bobw]

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

[Hank01]

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

[Mike Brooks]

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.....

[bobw]

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

[Hank01]

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

[Hank01]

One Bailes 19 bore blank turned to finish diameter:



Location for wedding bands turned to size:



Going to try Mike Brooks' suggestion and shape the bands by filing. Hope i don't mess it up.

Muzzle flare established:



Muzzle OD is still a tad heavy but we'll work it down in final shaping.

Hank