William Bailes double barrel replica

[smart dog]

Hi,
Here are photos of a 300 year old Spanish barrel by Bis.











The chiseled decoration goes all the way around the barrel.  My other Spanish barrel by Eudal Pous is the same way.

dave

[Mike Brooks]

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.

[Hank01]

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:
 


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

[Stoner creek]

Could that actually be carved out work as opposed to engraved? It looks a little taller.

[Hank01]

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

[Mike Brooks]

Chuck edwards could probably do it. I'd have him engrave the whole gun if you can't engrave.

[bobw]

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

[JH Ehlers]

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.

[Hank01]

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:



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   

[smart dog]

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

[James Rogers]

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

Ha was just heading into the study to get that pic

[Mike Brooks]

 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.

[Hank01]

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. 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   

[Mike Brooks]

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.

[Hank01]

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

[Rolf]

I've got your book Hank, and can definitely recommend it to anyone  who is thinking about building a double.

Best regards
Rolf

[Hank01]

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

[Hank01]

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:



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:



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   

[Jim Kibler]

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...

[James Rogers]

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:



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:



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?

[Daryl]

Those muzzles appear to maybe have end chokes.

[bobw]

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

[bobw]

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.

[rich pierce]

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.

[Hank01]

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.
 

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