|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,533
Posts545,969
Members14,420
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,849 Likes: 198
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,849 Likes: 198 |
fallschirmjäger:
Nah, I've just viewed a few more than most. That 16/1 is actually a vulgar fraction and although I do not know the designations like back of hand, I'm confident that billwolfe is correct @ 0.669" for the diameter of the bore. Regarding Suhl, they did not commence a dating scheme until September 1923 while Zella-Mehlis began in the early 1900s. There is some info that suggest that the Suhl proof facility saw renovation in the early 1920s and either the Suhl proof facility or the Suhl mechanics sent their wares to the Z-M facility, but either way there was a ledger number associated w/ the Suhl proofed weapons for say 6 months.
Cheers,
Raimey
rse
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 644 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 644 Likes: 3 |
Very interesting...thank you for sharing your knowledge on these fine guns
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,849 Likes: 198
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,849 Likes: 198 |
No worries. And I think that 16/1 measurement was taken @ 22cm or 8 inches forward of the breech?
Cheers,
Raimey
rse
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 433 Likes: 42
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 433 Likes: 42 |
Thank you for the information thus far. It is greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,849 Likes: 198
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,849 Likes: 198 |
Anything on the floorplate? For now, look toward August Schüler Suhl, possibly a Modell Nr. 1 or similar. I still can't get my August Schüler Suhl reprint catalogue at my fingertips but I did locate a thread on mechanic Schüler: http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=235071&page=1August Schüler, or his clients, seemed to really fancy the sideframe reinforcement. Also Schüler proffered examples that were to the max outfitted w/ reinforcement belts & braces. Cheers, Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
nominal 16 gauge = .662" (16.8mm); 15 gauge = .677" (17.2mm).
16/1 = (.662" + .677")/2 = .6695". Note average of the two numbers in calculating the "Tween" size is dropped, not rounded, to 3 decimal places, thus the 16/1 is .669" rather than .670".
!6/1 marked on the barrel meant that at proof it would accept the .669" plug gage to requisite depth but not the .677" one. There was no minus tolerance on the bore mark as the barrel had to accept the gage of that diameter. Plus tolerance was to the next size gage in the series which varied with each gauge size.
Gages were made in every even size gauge from 1 down to 50 (.453") & then in .010" steps from .450" down to .300 caliber (172.28 gauge). The .410 is incidentally a 67.49 gauge.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,849 Likes: 198
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,849 Likes: 198 |
.... There was no minus tolerance on the bore mark as the barrel had to accept the gage of that diameter. Plus tolerance was to the next size gage in the series which varied with each gauge size.
That's a capital point on the minus component. Chambers had a tolerance/variance of >2.5mm(Axel E. gives 2mm but what's 0.5mm??) before it warranted reproof so um one would commmence @ 65mm(Axel E. gives 65.1mm so I guess some empirical data from 100 or 1000 chambers might prove this out?) and range up to the proverbial 67.5mm, which most cartridges are designed. Therefore, if a chamber is 65.1mm plus 2.5mm then it is just shy of 70mm by less than 3mm. But pressure would more than likely be an issue when you jump to a 70mm cartridge. Cheers, Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
