|
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
|
|
|
|
2 members (DropLockBob, 1 invisible),
782
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,489
Posts561,994
Members14,584
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,758 Likes: 460
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,758 Likes: 460 |
After finally getting my Bill Henry wall thickness gauge, I set out to measure every vintage double I could find, starting with my lowly Smith 00. To my dismay found the chambers had been lengthened to 3 1/4" along with lengthening the forcing cones.
Fortunately, 1906 Armor steel 00 barrels are stout, and MWT as follows:
Right: Chamber @ 2 1/2" .132", 3" .118 and remained .118 out to 4", 6" .088, 9" .053.
Left: Chamber @ 2 1/2" .125", 3" .112, 3 1/2" & 4" .111, 6" .080 and 9" .044.
I very much agree that this outcome certainly may NOT occur in a light weight or small gauge barrel, as per the images posted at the beginning of this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,883 Likes: 19
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,883 Likes: 19 |
Sorry for keeping you waiting. Work and a sick dog are occupying my life at the moment. Chuck;
Chamber dia = .463"; Bore dia = .410; Difference = .053";
.053/2 =.0265"; Co-Tan 5° = 11.43
11.43 x .0265 = .3029; Exactly what is shown on the drawing. Winner! Winner! Winner! Jack Daniels dinner! I definitely would "NOT" call this a Long Cone.
Neither would I. Never did. You are implying I did. Your obliquity has continued. My quote: "It typifies the modern cone considered to be longer than many early 20th century guns."The cone length is shorter for the same angle in the .410 than in the larger gauges because there is less difference in chamber & bore diameters.
Your deductive powers are intact. Miller, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You misunderstood what I posted. If I misunderstand your intent, please continue.
Last edited by Chuck H; 11/10/15 10:24 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,893 Likes: 651
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,893 Likes: 651 |
Chuck don't give in. I love a good trig debate. This does show how important good math and reasoning skills are to machinists. People think precise machine work is all cnc and that math is not a important skill. I am sure ever machinists wishes it were that easy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Chuck; The quote you just gave; My quote: "It typifies the modern cone considered to be longer than many early 20th century guns."
is exactly what I have been talking about. The dimensions specified in the SAAMI drawings in fact very precisely Typify the early 20th century Short cone, not the modern longer cone. That's all I have ever said. That's the exact point I have tried desperately to make. You yourself said the dimensions I posted taken from an L C Smith drawing could not be correct because the 3°13' angle specified was not compatible with cones of the era, but it was. That angle was specified in 1935 drawings & would produce a cone of approximately 5/8", still not truly a long cone but longer than the 1907 drawings shown & longer than SAAMI spec drawings. It does not appear to me that SAAMI has ever "Modernized" their drawings as regards to cone length or angle, however you want to list it. With either known of course the other is readily found. It is also noteworthy I think that in older drawings SAAMI shows a minimum chamber length for the 2 3/4" 12ga shell of 2.6136". This would seem to take in all those "Old" Parkers etc which had 2 5/8" chambers but built to handle the 2 3/4" shell in 12 gauge. I truly do not see how I could have interpreted what you said when you told me o "Check My Trig" other than how I did. The trig "WAS RIGHT". The face angle of the Rim seat has been changed by 10° from the Smith drawings to the SAAMI ones, but this was not really discussed, The cone seemed to be the main point of contention & to date you have showed me Nothing Whatsoever I said which has proved to be Wrong.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,883 Likes: 19
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,883 Likes: 19 |
So, your intent is what? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,462 Likes: 89
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,462 Likes: 89 |
Intent is....
The difference between a real machinist and a back yard machinist.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,883 Likes: 19
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,883 Likes: 19 |
Frank, Miller is retired and I no longer own a working machine shop, nor am I employed any longer as a machinist or tool maker. So I guess we're both backyard machinists.
Last edited by Chuck H; 11/10/15 03:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
It doesn't really show in the drawing but if you do the math you will find the rim set has a 25° face & ends in a short parallel diameter behind the face. On the 12 gauge rim seat for instance you will have about a .025 deep section @ .885" diameter & then the 25° ace which goes to a total depth of .065". According to "Plans & Specifications" drawings by 1935 the 16 gauge bore had been increased to .662" diameter & the 20 gauge shell had been lengthened to 2 3/4". 16 gauge remained @ 2 9/16". .410 chambers had been added in both 2˝" & 3".
That 1 7/8" in 12˝" taper of the cone in the 1907 drawing figures to an angel of 4°17'21". By the 1935 drawings the cones had been lengthened with an angle of;
12 gauge = 3°1'; 16 & 20 gauges = 3° 13' & .410 = 2°26'
in the 12, 16 & 20 gauges this would give cone lengths of approximately 5/8". In the .410 even though the angle is shallower there is less difference in chamber & bore diameters so the cone would fall a bit short of 5/8" (.625") @ about .600". By today's standards these are still considered short cones but over the years have functioned well with a wide variety of shells beginning with those wadded with card & felt & on into the plastic era. I see little reason to change one of them. This was my original post on this subject Which you attacked. I have spent the next 3-4 pages defending this as all being true. As of yet nothing has been shown to dis-prove one Iota of it. My "Intent" is simply to defend this statement.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,883 Likes: 19
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,883 Likes: 19 |
Miller,
I think you're overly sensitive and dramatic. Your anamorphic descriptions of my statements are entertaining. If I had "attacked" your post, it would not have been subtle.
I think you and I aren't reading the same forum. I thought you spent the last 3-4 pages dispelling my statement that many early 20th century guns had shorter forcing cones than 5*.
Once you have acquired a database of all early 20th century shotgun forcing cones and ensured there are no significant numbers of guns made with forcing cones steeper than 5*, my statement that included "many" and "longer", can be discredited and you can reign supreme as the Iron Fact Finder. Don't forget the British and continental guns. As the nut people say: Get crackin.
Last edited by Chuck H; 11/10/15 04:46 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Chuck;
OK I am following you now. You have made some number of posts over the last 3-4 pages & in fact have Said "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL".
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
