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
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
371
guests, and
2
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,480
Posts545,229
Members14,410
|
Most Online1,335 Apr 27th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,092 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,092 Likes: 13 |
Check out the barrels in "After 100-150 years" thread. They look like they are touching for a long distance behind the muzzle.
So many guns, so little time!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319 |
I'm having a hard time geometrically understanding how SxS barrels designed to have crossing shot about 20 - 30 yards out....longer perhaps for SxS rifles...can be touching more than a couple of inches behind the muzzles. It should be a pretty simple geometry problem. I'll work it out on graph paper and post it here.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152 |
Understand that, even though doublegun barrels are not struck this way, it would be possible for the barrels to touch all the way from the breech to the muzzles yet still have considerable convergence built in, if they had a straight profile taper. Convergence is based upon the center-line of the bore of each barrel. The outer profile of the barrels are what touch, or do not. They are tapered on the outside, towards the muzzles ........thicker at the breech, thinner at the muzzle.
Note that I am not saying barrels are assembled with them touching together all the way, under the ribs. I'm just using the extreme example to illustrate the concept. I.e., take two disassembled shotgun barrels, hold them together so that they are touching at the muzzles and also at the breech. If they are tapered like all I've ever seen are, there will be convergence. The hard part is regulating the amount of convergence to match the lateral movement, in recoil, of the individual barrel being fired.
If it's hard to perceive this, draw a set of barrels on a piece of paper, with a straight edge, and see for yourself.
SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,092 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,092 Likes: 13 |
Based on your explanation Stan and the pictures in the other thread, it should be obvious that even though muzzles touch the barrels could have been cut.
So many guns, so little time!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152 |
Except that you have to keep in mind that each set of barrels was profiled by an individual. It's not important how much the barrels are separated at 4", 14" or 20" from the muzzle. Heavy striking, to make the barrels as light as possible, can "separate them from each other" to a greater degree, or for a longer portion of their length. But, to address your specific scenario ......... yes, the barrels could have been cut and still touch. It's not impossible, but with the way most gunmakers I am familiar with joined them, it is unlikely. Most American guns that I have seen with cut barrels have muzzles that do not touch.
To further complicate the deal, Not all doubles with original length barrels have muzzles that touch. I have several that do not.
SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,715 Likes: 415
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,715 Likes: 415 |
Sometimes, muzzles more than touch.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 95 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 95 Likes: 1 |
BrentD - I have a Verney Carron 12ga with barrels as you have pictured. If you look carefully you can see where one barrel has a concave to accommodate the other barrel. Barrel regulation?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,715 Likes: 415
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,715 Likes: 415 |
I suspect it was all about regulation. It would be interesting to see if that is more Common in early rifles. This is about 1830.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,463 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,463 Likes: 212 |
Could it be maker preference during original construction? Wouldn't it be labor intensive to put a concave into only one barrel. One would think a maker would have a basic build layout and that regulation, if needed, would be more subtle than if those muzzle loading barrels started off as uniformly round?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,715 Likes: 415
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,715 Likes: 415 |
I have never cut barrels back and do not intend on doing so, but will a gun that is in good regulation likely still be in good regulation after a significant shortening?
I should add, I am thinking only of shotguns here, not double rifles.
Last edited by BrentD; 02/17/20 01:50 PM.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
|
|
|
|
|