The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The North Corral > Black Powder and Cowboy Action Shooting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 23, 2013, 10:21 AM   #1
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,135
12 shot percussion revolver with six chambers

Superimposed chambers using two hammers (one hammer split in half) and two triggers. I'd love one of these.
http://www.neatorama.com/2011/01/04/...ire-12-rounds/

No chance Uberti or Pietta would ever make a reproduction of this though.
Too much liability in case of a chainfire using those superimposed loads. Sure would be nice if they did though. Careful loading and tight caps would be paramount for preventing chainfires. I'd buy one in a hearbeat if they did make it though.



.
__________________
"This is my Remy and this is my Colt. Remy loads easy and topstrap strong, Colt balances better and never feels wrong. A repro black powder revolver gun, they smoke and shoot lead and give me much fun. I can't figure out which one I like better, they're both fine revolvers that fit in my leather".
"To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target".
Bill Akins is offline  
Old June 23, 2013, 12:58 PM   #2
NateKirk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 435
That is amazing. It's great to see all the inventions and innovations that people came up with back then
__________________
“Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".”

― --Thomas Jefferson
NateKirk is offline  
Old June 23, 2013, 01:31 PM   #3
mykeal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 8, 2006
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 2,772
Not sure what 'liability' with respect to chainfires would be. Any of the current Uberti and Pietta replicas are quite capable of a chain fire, yet there are no liability problems with those. Are you suggesting that people would sue if they experienced one with this gun, when they don't sue with today's guns? And what would they sue for - you have to have some damage in order to sue, and I don't see much damage with a chainfire today.
mykeal is offline  
Old June 23, 2013, 03:23 PM   #4
bedbugbilly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2009
Posts: 3,282
Same principle as the 1863 Lindsey Musket in terms of double loads only applied to a revolver - interesting piece. Thanks for posting Bill. I have a feeling that if Pietta or Uberti made any of these, we wouldn't be able to afford them - we thought the LeMatt was an expensive toy!
__________________
If a pair of '51 Navies were good enough for Billy Hickok, then a single Navy on my right hip is good enough for me . . . besides . . . I'm probably only half as good as he was anyways. Hiram's Rangers Badge #63
bedbugbilly is offline  
Old June 23, 2013, 05:54 PM   #5
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,700
The book Firearms Curiosa by Lewis Winant is an excellent source for such "oddball" guns.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old June 23, 2013, 06:01 PM   #6
Jo6pak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2010
Location: West Coast...of WI
Posts: 1,663
I've been trying to remember the name of that book for ages...thanks for the tips
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF contributor.
Jo6pak is offline  
Old June 23, 2013, 08:16 PM   #7
Andy Griffith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 14, 2009
Location: Macon Co. NC
Posts: 591
Same principle as those new metalstorm artillery pieces.

"Everything old is new again."
__________________
Barney Fife: "Nip it, nip it, nip it!"
Andy Griffith:"Oh now Barn'...."
Andy Griffith is offline  
Old June 23, 2013, 08:28 PM   #8
Gaucho Gringo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 366
There is a reason why this and all the other hundreds of "oddball guns" fell by the wayside. They were either undependable, hard to manufacture, too costly or just too oddball. When this gun was conceived it was an era when a premium was placed on dependability with cost effectiveness. You wanted an affordable gun that worked because generally your life depended on it. Colt, Remington, S&W and some of the other smaller gun makers of the era provided a product that meet these criteria. If you needed more shots, just buy a second gun. I daresay that two regular six shot revolvers cost less than this gun and were probably a lot more dependable.
__________________
357 Taurus Gaucho, 22 Heritage RR, 2-Pietta 1858 44 NMA Remingtons, Pietta, Euroarms & ASM 36 1851 Navies, 31 Uberti 1849, 12 ga H&R Topper, 16 Ga Western Field, 43 Spanish Remington Rolling Block, 44 ASM Colt Walker, High Point C9 9mm, Winchester 1906 22, Rossi 62 22 rifle, Uberti 1860, H&A & IJ 32 S&W BreakTop, 36 Euroarms 1858, 32 H&R 04, 22mag NAA SS BP revolver, .44 Rodgers & Spencer, IJ 38 S&W BreakTop, IJ 22 Sealed 8
Gaucho Gringo is offline  
Old June 23, 2013, 10:04 PM   #9
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,135
Quote:
Mykeal wrote:
"Not sure what 'liability' with respect to chainfires would be. Any of the current Uberti and Pietta replicas are quite capable of a chain fire, yet there are no liability problems with those. Are you suggesting that people would sue if they experienced one with this gun, when they don't sue with today's guns? And what would they sue for - you have to have some damage in order to sue, and I don't see much damage with a chainfire today."
You know how "sue happy" society is today Mykeal. A lady sued McDonalds and won over a million dollars because she was stupid and spilled hot coffee on her lap. Yes I am suggesting that people would sue if they experienced a chainfire with that revolver when they don't sue with todays guns.

Because this percussion revolver uses superimposed charges and todays reproduction percussion revolvers do not.

I believe a case could be made to a soccer mom jury, (ignorant of percussion firearms) that a superimposed charge (Roman candle charge) is more likely to chainfire (within that same chamber) than a regular charge, and thus that the company should have known that and not built it. So attorneys for Uberti or Pietta probably might advise not to build it for that reason.

However, in spite of my belief that attorneys would err on the side of caution, I think that if carefully and properly loaded, a chainfire would be unlikely. Even if the rear charge was set off first, it would then ignite the front charge and set both charges off in that superimposed charge chamber at the same time. Which isn't really a chainfire in the normal sense because it would all be occurring within the same chamber. Which wouldn't cause any damage if a steel frame because it would be the same as if someone max loaded a regular cylinder. So in my mind even if a chainfire occurred in that superimposed load chamber, it wouldn't cause a problem. But I also know how sensitive company attorneys are towards any possibility of a lawsuit.

The idea is a great idea and one that has been around since the ancient burning tallow Roman candle firework. I just have one question about it that hopefully someone here might be able to answer.

Picture in your mind the two loads with one superimposed over the other. Even using a lubed felt wad. Now pictures the front one going off. As the front charge tries to push the ball forward, there is an equal and opposite force trying to push the explosion rearward. Of course the ball being pushed forward is the path of least resistance, but still, for a nanosecond, the explosion is trying to get out any way it can while the ball is still in the barrel. To my mind that would force the fire of the explosion rearward as well as forward. Which makes me wonder if that would be sufficient for the explosion to force past the edges of the rearmost ball and felt wad and into the rearmost powder charge?

Just a few small grains of powder stuck between the edges of the ball and the cylinder could be enough to cause the fire to burn past the ball and wad an into the rear charge couldn't it? Especially since the explosion is being pushed to the rear as it is also pushing the frontmost ball forward.

We can see the power of the explosion rearward in a regular cylinder when it can blow caps off the nipple of the fired chamber (if the caps are loose fitting or the nipple holes are slightly enlarged or worn out) and also how if using a very heavy charge it can actually cause the cap to blow off with such force that it cocks the hammer. (I actually had that auto hammer cock happen to me once firing a 50 grain charge on my old Walker I used to have).

So I am wondering if just a tightly squeezed ball and a lubed wad would be enough to prevent the explosion from setting off the rearmost charge. What if the ball was a tiny bit out of round leaving a tiny channel for the front explosion to get past and to the rear? What if the chamber was just a tiny bit out of round leaving a tiny channel for the front explosion to take advantage of?

These are the questions that bother me about it. Not necessarily that it would be unsafe, because if both charges went off at the same time, it wouldn't be any more unsafe than having a max heavy charge going off in a normal chamber. But if does make me question the effective operation and if the superimposed charges theory would be viable or if it would maybe not always, but frequently set off both charges at once.

But I'd still buy one just to find out.


.
__________________
"This is my Remy and this is my Colt. Remy loads easy and topstrap strong, Colt balances better and never feels wrong. A repro black powder revolver gun, they smoke and shoot lead and give me much fun. I can't figure out which one I like better, they're both fine revolvers that fit in my leather".
"To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target".

Last edited by Bill Akins; June 24, 2013 at 02:38 AM.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old June 24, 2013, 01:54 AM   #10
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,135
Here's some more interesting links to that Walsh 6 chamber 12 shot percussion revolver.

http://www.aaawt.com/html/firearms/f287.html

Below is a really good one showing several models and calibers with close ups.
http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Pisto...REVOLVER..html

http://peashooter85.tumblr.com/post/...olver-invented

http://www.prices4antiques.com/Hand-...r-D9911296.htm

http://www.artfact.com/auction-lot/r...6-c-cfb4604c66

http://percussionrevolvers.com/index.php?topic=727.0

This below one has Walsh patent drawings and photos too.
http://www.american-firearms.com/ame...h,%20John.html

You'll have to scroll down 3/4's of the page to find the Walsh superimposed chambers revolver in this below link.
http://www.angelfire.com/oh3/civilwa...122webcat.html

http://jamesdjulia.com/auctions/264/.../org/37816.jpg

http://pinterest.com/pin/265430971759171189/
__________________
"This is my Remy and this is my Colt. Remy loads easy and topstrap strong, Colt balances better and never feels wrong. A repro black powder revolver gun, they smoke and shoot lead and give me much fun. I can't figure out which one I like better, they're both fine revolvers that fit in my leather".
"To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target".
Bill Akins is offline  
Old June 24, 2013, 02:25 AM   #11
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,135
The Walsh design is interesting. But I am not yet sold that the forward charge wouldn't frequently set off the rearward charge. However, let's just for the moment take it at a given that it worked and didn't set off the rear charge at the same time for the purposes of the below discussion. I am wondering if perhaps a regular reproduction black powder revolver might be modified to do similar at a minimum of cost and bother.

I invite comments and let's explore this.

First for any BP newbies, I'll mention multiple projectile loads that can be loaded into the chambers of regular black powder revolvers.

If you have a very long cylinder such as with the Colt Walker repros, you can easily load like this. First load a charge and seat your ball on top of it. Then put a cardboard spacer or even a felt wad on top of that ball and load another ball on top of that. The cardboard or felt spacer is so the two lead projectiles won't be driven to stick together when they are forced against each other when they are pushed out. I have heard of people using buckshot balls to do this with also.

If you are using a shorter cylinder, say a 1851 or 1860 Colt, you might have to use .38 caliber or .45 caliber wadcutter lead projectiles and shorten them a little for them to both fit into the cylinder. But the idea is the same, two strikes on the target for each chamber shot fired. I have loaded two shortened .38 caliber wadcutters like this in a .357 cartridge case too.

Now let's explore how superimposed separate loads in single cylinders (Walsh/Roman candle style) might be made using standard BP revolvers.

I don't like the idea of the split hammer (essentially two hammers) and two triggers on the Walsh revolver. Too complicated and too easy to function both triggers accidentally at the same time.

Instead I am wondering if a cam such as used in derringers could be used so that one time the hammer is pulled back it is in a position to hit one of two nipples over one chamber, then when the hammer is pulled back again it it cammed to change its position to hit the other nipple for the same chamber. That would eliminate the need for two hammers and two triggers.

The cylinder would be kept the same as the Walsh cylinder having a flash channel going from one nipple that enters the chamber at the halfway point.
The other flash channel entering the chamber at its rear as in normal BP revolver operation.

The trick would be, how to modify a standard BP revolver so that its hammer cams into a different position to fire each successive nipple. I am also thinking of having a movable striking head on the hammer. So that you would first fire 6 shots normally, then move that (spring detent held) hammer head to where it would strike the other nipples and fire six more shots that way.

Sure would be an easy way to do it by only modifying a standard BP revolver to have a movable striking head on the hammer, and replace the cylinder with a Walsh type superimposed load cylinder. Yes you would have to move the striking head of the hammer after the first six shots so it would contact the nipples for the next six shots. But that would be better than two hammers and two triggers as in the original Walsh. Wouldn't take but half a second to move the hammer head and then you have six more shots.

Then you could actually load two projectiles in each superimposed load like I described earlier, and have 24 strikes on the target for twelve shots.

Purely academic, I'm not thinking of building one. Actually if I was going to build something like that, I'd switch to this idea instead, which could be done with a percussion or cartridge revolver without any permanent modification to the revolver, by simply replacing the cylinder with a gear on the cylinder pin and adding the chain held chambers.......

http://www.google.com/patents?id=qUU...volver&f=false

That would be really cool on a double action revolver, percussion or cartridge.

Just don't ask me how you would holster that. Lol.


Thoughts?



.
__________________
"This is my Remy and this is my Colt. Remy loads easy and topstrap strong, Colt balances better and never feels wrong. A repro black powder revolver gun, they smoke and shoot lead and give me much fun. I can't figure out which one I like better, they're both fine revolvers that fit in my leather".
"To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target".

Last edited by Bill Akins; June 24, 2013 at 02:45 AM.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old June 24, 2013, 07:06 AM   #12
mykeal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 8, 2006
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 2,772
With respect to the litigation concern:

While there are certainly plenty of lawyers who would be willing to pursue such a case, the fact remains that for anyone to get past the initial filing of such a suit there must be actual damages; the act or fault must have caused the plaintiff some actual harm. The woman who succeeded in the famous McDonald's hot coffee incident was harmed by the hot coffee; whether the harm was serious enough to warrant the judgement is another matter, but there was no question that there were actual damages. The first thing any lawyer, plaintiff or defendant, is going to do is ask, "What were the damages?" If the answer is none, then there's no case.

And that's the issue with the chainfire. I know that it's a popular internet pastime to rant about chainfires, but you really have to dig deep and long to find any instance of damage done to the firearm or the shooter. I conclude that fear of possible litigation from a chainfire incident was not a significant factor, if it was even considered, in deciding whether or not to put this gun into mass production.

In any case, the issue here is not a chainfire at all, at least not in the classic sense of sympathetic firing of adjacent revolver chambers. You've correctly identified the issue of setting off the back charge in conjunction with the front charge, but I don't think the term chainfire applies.

My opinion is that the odds of firing both charges are probably quite high. And the results are not good for either the gun or the shooter. There are plenty of anecdotes on the internet about accidentally double charged (meaning two charges and two projectiles, one atop the other, as opposed to double shotted, which means one charge, two projectiles) rifles and the damage done to the barrels (and shooters) in such incidents. Double-shotting was frequently and intentionally done in battle to good effect. Double-charging was not. The bottom line is that the top charge acts as a bore obstruction for the bottom charge, and the pressures become quite high. The saving grace here, if any, is that the chamber is very short and there is a pressure relieving mechanism at the chamber mouth. Still, the physics are not good for continued long life and happiness of either the gun or shooter.
mykeal is offline  
Old June 24, 2013, 07:25 AM   #13
ChaperallCat
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2013
Posts: 81
the problems arise from if you fire the wrong chamber first. fire a 30 grain powder charge, a 144 grain round ball, when it has an unfired, identical charge in front of it.
youll see where the lawsuit comes into play.
ChaperallCat is offline  
Old June 24, 2013, 08:18 AM   #14
Rifleman1776
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 3,309
That's a hoot. I suspect they were very unreliable.
If you want a similar thrill just get yourself one of the movie western 50 shot 6 guns.
Rifleman1776 is offline  
Old June 24, 2013, 09:04 AM   #15
Hawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,175
Quote:
the problems arise from if you fire the wrong chamber first. fire a 30 grain powder charge, a 144 grain round ball, when it has an unfired, identical charge in front of it.
youll see where the lawsuit comes into play.
I wouldn't expect it do do anything except have a lot of recoil.
Hawg is offline  
Old June 24, 2013, 12:20 PM   #16
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,135
I don't know about that Hawg. On second thought thinking about it, it might have more effect than just more recoil. At first I had thought that if both charges went off it would just be like firing a maximum charge normally, but the more I think about it, I think it could be dangerous.

Let's explore that.

I theorize that if the front charge set off the charge behind it, then the front projectile still in the barrel would be just slightly forward of the rear projectile, since the front charge went off a nanosecond before it set the rear charge off. That would possibly create a situation where high gas pressure could build up in the gap between the two projectiles in the barrel. Possibly causing either a bulge in the barrel or cylinder or causing the barrel or cylinder to blow up. Because we must remember that the gas pressure from the front charge is going backward in the barrel at the same time it is going forward to push the front projectile out. That means the rear projectile is pushing against gas that is coming back at it in the gap between the two projectiles still in the barrel, thus causing dangerously high pressure in the gap between the two projectiles.

Just an academic theory, but it has merit and makes sense to me.


.
__________________
"This is my Remy and this is my Colt. Remy loads easy and topstrap strong, Colt balances better and never feels wrong. A repro black powder revolver gun, they smoke and shoot lead and give me much fun. I can't figure out which one I like better, they're both fine revolvers that fit in my leather".
"To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target".

Last edited by Bill Akins; June 24, 2013 at 12:30 PM.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old June 24, 2013, 05:18 PM   #17
mykeal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 8, 2006
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 2,772
Your theory assumes the front charge is immobile, which it isn't.
mykeal is offline  
Old June 25, 2013, 03:24 AM   #18
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,135
No Mykeal, I am not assuming the front charge is immobile.

What I am saying is that the front charge goes off first. It's gas tries to expand in all directions 360 degrees and since its ball is movable it drives that ball forward into the barrel. But that superheated pressurized expanding gas is trying to expand in all directions but is trapped in its sides by the barrel and can only go forward or rearward. As it goes rearward and squeezes past the rearward ball and felt wad it sets that rearward charge off a nanosecond later from the front charge going off.

But the front charge went off first a nanosecond earlier, so its ball is already MOVING down the barrel as the rear charge is being set off. (So as you can see, I wasn't assuming the front charge was immobile). Then like I said, just a nanosecond later the front charge improperly sets off the rear charge. But in that nanosecond of a headstart that the front ball has moving forward over the rearward ball, there is now a gap between the two different projectiles that are both still in the barrel.

Remember that the front charge expanding gas is trying to expand in all directions. That means as it pushes its front ball forward, hot gas pressure is pushing rearward towards the rear ball and rear powder charge (Newton's law) (which is what sets off the rear charge). Once the hot expanding gas of the front charge sets off the rear charge and the rear ball starts going forward, that rear ball is having to push forwardly against the rearwardly expanding gases of the front charge which is trying to push that rear ball back.

So the pressure of the expanding gas of the front charge is pushing back against the rear ball which is trying to go forward since the rear charge was set off. And there is a gap between the two balls because they went off a nanosecond apart. So within that gap of space between the two balls, because the front charge gas pressure is expanding rearward as well as forward, that front charge gas pressure is pushing back against the rear ball as the rear charge expanding gas is trying to move forward and move its ball forward.

Actually that could create a dangerous overpressure of hot gas not only in that gap between the two MOVING balls, but create a dangerous overpressure BEHIND the rearmost ball. Two separate overpressure areas in the barrel.

Because the front charge expanding in all directions gas pressure is not only creating an overpressure in the gap between the two balls, but since the front charge pressure is trying to push the rearmost ball to the rear and impeding its going forward gas pressure behind that rearmost ball, that slowing down of the rear ball would create an overpressure behind the rear ball as well. Both areas of overpressure which could blow up the cylinder or the barrel. Understand what I mean now Mykeal?





.
__________________
"This is my Remy and this is my Colt. Remy loads easy and topstrap strong, Colt balances better and never feels wrong. A repro black powder revolver gun, they smoke and shoot lead and give me much fun. I can't figure out which one I like better, they're both fine revolvers that fit in my leather".
"To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target".

Last edited by Bill Akins; June 25, 2013 at 03:54 AM.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old June 25, 2013, 06:31 AM   #19
Captchee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2013
Posts: 439
Interesting piece .
I think you were on the right track when you started out bill .
The idea of superimposing charges to effect repeated firing wasn’t new .
There are 18th century flintlocks that do just that but have 4 or 5 super imposed charges .

The biggest reason I think they never really caught on is that they were or at least appear to be a little complicated to shoot and load . In some cases probably mechanically challenged as well . Not to also mention the possibility that someone could set of the rear charge prior to setting off the front charge .
Which IMO would be a far larger concern then a chain fire
Captchee is offline  
Old June 25, 2013, 06:53 AM   #20
mykeal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 8, 2006
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 2,772
Understand?

No, I don't. You've got gases expanding in all directions and yet gaps at the same time. And your nanosecond timing is hard to believe; this stuff happens in milliseconds, not nanoseconds. I do agree that pressures will reach higher levels than what a single charge would generate, but the effect of that is just going to be to accelerate the front ball faster. You're attempting to make a case for extreme conditions that, in my opinion, requires things don't move at all.
mykeal is offline  
Old June 25, 2013, 10:45 AM   #21
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,135
Mykeal. My use of the word "nanoseconds" (instead of "milliseconds"), was just to underscore that it all happens so fast. We can use "milliseconds" if you prefer.

I thought when I explained what I was trying to say a second time, that it would be more clear. Sometimes I tend to get wordy and perhaps it might be hard to understand the gist of what I am saying because of the phrasing I use.
I'll try to be more clear and less verbose.

Okay, imagine a tube (chamber of cylinder or barrel) with one charge at the rear and a wad and ball over that. Then another charge on top of that ball and another wad and ball on top of that charge. That's the setup. The front charge goes off and its gas tries to expand in all directions driving the ball forward and also expanding to the rear possibly squeezing past the ball and wad of the rear ball, and sets that rear charge off too just "milliseconds" after the front charge went off.

But remember, the front charge went off milliseconds first before the rear charge went off. That means the front ball will start traveling down the barrel before the rear ball will. Expanding gas pressure from the front charge is now pushing rearward against the rear ball, putting rearward pressure on the rear ball when it is trying to go forward. Thus trapping steadily overpressurizing gas between the two balls. That of course would cause a dangerous overpressure in the gap area between the two balls. Also by the front charge's gas expanding rearward and slowing down the forward progress of the rear ball, it also cause a pressure buildup behind that rear ball, since the rear charge's expanding gas is trying to move that ball forward while the front gas is trying to move that rear ball rearward. So I theorize two areas of overpressure if the front charge were to set off the rear charge.

Did I explain what I meant any better this time? Hope so. Originally when I was first looking at this, of course I was attracted to it for not only the novelty, but also for the increased shots available. But after thinking about this more, I now realize there is a reason that some of the sites (that I posted links to) said that this was one of the most dangerous percussion revolvers ever produced. It might not set both charges off all the time, but it only takes once to bulge the barrel or blow up the revolver. The same can be said about those superimposed loads flintlocks that were also mentioned. Am I correct in my theory? I'm not 100% sure, but in carefully thinking about the forces involved I think it's a good probability that I might be. If you don't think I am, explain to me how what I said regarding the expanding gases is incorrect.


.
__________________
"This is my Remy and this is my Colt. Remy loads easy and topstrap strong, Colt balances better and never feels wrong. A repro black powder revolver gun, they smoke and shoot lead and give me much fun. I can't figure out which one I like better, they're both fine revolvers that fit in my leather".
"To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target".

Last edited by Bill Akins; June 25, 2013 at 02:08 PM.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old June 25, 2013, 01:46 PM   #22
Hawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,175
Methinks that by the time any over pressure conditions would occur (not that I think there would be any) the front ball would already be in the barrel and the pressure would be relieved by the cylinder gap.
Hawg is offline  
Old June 25, 2013, 02:02 PM   #23
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,135
Perhaps a picture/drawing would be worth a thousand words. Here's a sketch I drew to explain.





.
__________________
"This is my Remy and this is my Colt. Remy loads easy and topstrap strong, Colt balances better and never feels wrong. A repro black powder revolver gun, they smoke and shoot lead and give me much fun. I can't figure out which one I like better, they're both fine revolvers that fit in my leather".
"To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target".
Bill Akins is offline  
Old June 25, 2013, 02:14 PM   #24
Hawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,175
The original subject was a revolver. A revolver has a short chamber, even if its elongated for two charges. The front ball is still going to be close to the end of the chamber and would be in the barrel before any over pressure resulted. I don't believe there would be any over pressure even in a rifle tho. I could maybe see it with a thin shotgun barrel, maybe.
Hawg is offline  
Old June 25, 2013, 04:56 PM   #25
Captchee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2013
Posts: 439
I think Bill , while you may have a point in what you say , there are a few things to consider .
The front projectile is going to move with very little force . Really no more then what it took to seat it .
There fore the projectile will move well before the entire charge has completed it combustion.
As the projectile moves , it also enlarges the combustion chamber.
Also , even though there will be some back pressure applied to the rear projectile , any real force would I believe serve to possibly enlarge that projectile. The with pressure is it will seek the point of least resistance , that point is going to be forward in the direction of the moving projectile.
So the rear projectile would act something like a fence in a shape charge .
So unless the rear projectile a lose fit , the chance of back pressure finding its way to the rear charge is probably slim to none .
So the real question would be how much gap would result in enough heat and pressure getting to the back charge .
Well if we look at the old Nock pistol designs with a rotating gate we see that even a hand fitted gate that’s properly done , will not allow the gas to get to the 2nd charge even though one would think it would



But what actually happens is the heat and gas runs to the point of least resistance even though its surrounded the other charge .

Even the application of revolving cylinders with charges in them is a very old design which dates well back to flintlocks that had pans that were loaded on the cylinders itself . Small gates were then closed over the prime and the cylinder turned by hand . One would think the flash and resulting back pressure from the vent would ignight the other primed pans on the cylinder

Last edited by Captchee; June 25, 2013 at 05:02 PM.
Captchee is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10169 seconds with 8 queries