Comments on a barrel profile

[JohnTyg221]

Would appreciate any comments on a barrel profile that I may use on a new build.

Pulled out a 50 cal Orion barrel that I had hand profiled from one of their strait tapered offerings. Had set it aside for a Rice B weight barrel so I could have it pre-inlet. That was over 10 years ago on my 2nd rifle.  Now getting the bug to do another rifle.  Removed the plug and it still had the layout dye, looked as if I had done a decent fit. Currently 40 3/16 inch in length, 1 inch breech tapering to .796 and flared to .859.  This is not as aggressively swamped as some modern production barrels.
Would like to do a Reading, RCA #25 or similar.

Any thoughts on this profile?

Thanks, John T

[Mike Brooks]

Oughta woik.

[Dave B]

John, Welcome to the forum.  You are asking the right kinds of questions at the start of a project. This will make things come together with fewer issues as you go. The rifle you talk about has a big breach being one of Oerter's make. The barrel you have is too slim for this style of rifle. Shumway has a template of measurements at the start of each rifle listed with dimensions of the rifle.The breach on Christin Oreter's rifles needs to be between 1 3/16" and 1 5/32"  to emulate the wrist dimension and shape of the butt stock architecture for a Christian spring's gun. You can always make a scaled down version using the barrel you have. Its just going to not have the look or feel of the big breach rifle. Here is what I am talking about. The german fowler's breach is 1 5/16" Rev war period posibly pre rev war, the Lancaster fowler is 1" at the breach from early 1800's could be 1790's, the other barrel is pre rev war and is just shy of  1 1/4"

The barrel you have will work well on most all of the golden age rifles post revoultionary war. Good luck with your project.
image to url

[JohnTyg221]

Mike and Dave,

Thanks for the response. Not new to forum but my last post was 2012 and the site did not recognize my old username.
 
Anyways, yes, this is the type of info I am looking for. My last rifle (No.2) was completed 2012, I think good quality workmanship, but some architectural issues that could have been improved upon, and some carving that was not as well done as I would have liked.  Planning to improve upon it.

RCA No. 24 & 25 both show a breech of 15/16".  No 26 1".  But more typically breeches seem to be in the 1 1/8 - 3/16" range for the earlier guns.  I'm thinking 1" may work for a 1780 period Reading, although I do like the looks of the earlier guns.

I did receive a fair amount of appreciated help with my last rifle.  Looking forward to starting this one.

Pic of my rifle from 2012, no longer here since it was Photobucket if I remember.

John

[JohnTyg221]

And one more question.

To get the fence of the lock pan at the breech, is it acceptable to but a liner through the plug and then drill a center chamber in the face of the plug?

John T

[Dave B]

I have seen that done. It is the equivelent of a Nock breach. If you put spanner holes in the touch hole face plate you can pull the liner so you can un breach the rifle. I saw a Jaeger with this feature to allow field replacement of the touch hole. The 3 extra touc hole liners were  screwed into the bottom of the patchbox cavity. It had a sliding wood lid for the box cover.

[Dave B]

I have seen that done. It is the equivelent of a Nock breach. If you put spanner holes in the touch hole face plate you can pull the liner so you can un breach the rifle. I saw a Jaeger with this feature to allow field replacement of the touch hole. The 3 extra touc hole liners were  screwed into the bottom of the patchbox cavity. It had a sliding wood lid for the box cover.

[rich pierce]

I’d not try to put the fence at the back edge of the barrel. Many were not. It’s not a “rule” in my book.

[flatsguide]

John, you do very nice work! Why did you put the witness marks on the top of the barrel?
CheersRichard

[JohnTyg221]

Guess the witness marks are not entirely necessary, some may consider it as detracting. 

I'm compulsive, and with all the removing and replacing of the plug to get a good fit I get concerned about over tightening. its just one more indicator to my eye to show me exactly where it belongs, that I have tightened it enough.  .... Purely functional. 

BTW not the cleanest witness mark as you can see the chisel bounce, but think that secondary mark will file out. Guess I see some of the beauty in these as a functional tool, not just pretty cosmetics.

[JohnTyg221]

Oh, and the bottom part of the tang does not extend to the bottom barrel flat, it's just the way I made it.

[flatsguide]

Got it! Thanks

[JohnTyg221]

Flatsguide,

You got me thinking regarding the witness mark.  Had to jog my memory as to why I did this.

20 years ago I purchased a strait tapered Orion barrel. Good reputation and price and I thought a strait taper would be easier to inlet. As I learned more about original rifle architecture I decided to draw file to a swamped profile, this would also give me a more individualized barrel without a "production" profile. When I made the plug I did not extend the base of the tang to the bottom barrel flat because many originals I had seen were not made that way. 

Just took a quick look at Shumway.  Witness or alignment marks were not terribly uncommon on early guns. I'm sure I got the idea from the Christian Spring rifle.

John T