The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 12, 2011, 08:08 AM   #76
Double J
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2007
Location: So. Illinois
Posts: 547
Harmonic detonation

After thinking about it, the term, "Chain-Fire" could be upped to a new level.
Double J is offline  
Old September 12, 2011, 12:20 PM   #77
Stephanie B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2008
Location: NWern SE Missouri
Posts: 280
I don't do cap & ball revolver shooting and I can't recall ever holding a Remington `58. So I don't know if there is the extra room to bore out the center of the cylinder to add a coil spring. Even if there is, would there be an issue with regard to keeping the cylinder aligned with no wobble as the cylinder rotates, the base pin/piston comes back as the cylinder rotates?

Akumabito's idea for a gas piston might be easier, for then you're not messing around with the base pin, nor are you drilling out the cylinder and frame to accommodate a recoil spring. It looks a little funky with the gas cylinder on top, but there would be less need to modify the revolver to try it out.
Stephanie B is offline  
Old September 13, 2011, 04:51 AM   #78
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Double J wrote:
Harmonic detonation.
After thinking about it, the term, "Chain-Fire" could be upped to a new level.
I can understand one thinking that at first glance seeing all those many chambers in a row like that on the harmonica block Double J, but actually the possibility of a chain fire with my tripod mounted, muzzleloading harmonica gun concept would be even safer than on a regular muzzleloading revolver. Here's why....

On a six shot muzzleloading revolver one chamber is aligned with the barrel. Four other chambered balls could PARTIALLY hit the frame or barrel area, but the most they would do is dent and deflect the ball. It is the very bottom chamber directly in line with the rammer that is the only one that would really cause a problem in damaging the revolver in a chainfire.

But on my tripod mounted harmonica muzzleloader concept, none of the chambers would be in a position to hit the frame or barrel. One chamber is aligned with the barrel and the other chambers of the harmonica block could be spaced far enough apart so that if the next loaded chamber to the left of the barrel were to chainfire, it would pop the ball out harmlessly without hitting any part of the weapon. Also it would pop out with little force not being under barrel compression.

Even if the chambers were spaced closer together so that the chamber to the left of the one aligned with the barrel were to chainfire and could hit the receiver, instead of having a flat spot there, a slight angle built into the receiver at that point could deflect the ball away from the receiver.

So in reality, the fact that there were a lot of chambers in the harmonica block would be irrelevant to any problems with chainfires.

Here's an interesting analogy.

In the very very early beginnings of aerial combat in WW1, pilots and their observers used pistols and rifles to shoot at opposing enemy pilots. observers could only shoot from the rear seat with a machine gun sideways or at an angle, and this was an era before most planes were even carrying machine guns. This was also before the machine gun was even tried mounted on top of the wing to miss the prop. Usually more powerful engine two seater planes could carry a machine gun, but they always mounted it for the rear observer to use if they did carry one. The very earliest single seat reconnaissance planes were too underpowered to be able to operate effectively with the weight of a machine gun.

Pioneer prewar test pilot and English channel flyer, French aviator Roland Garros worked out that only 10% of machine gun bullets fired forward would hit the prop. So using a souped up single seater, he put a machine gun in front of the pilot and attached steel deflector plates to his prop to deflect those 10% of bullets that would hit the prop. The Germans did not fear a plane flying directly towards them because neither side had been able to shoot at each other forward of the propeller that way yet. So Garros quickly became an ace. Unfortunately in addition to killing his mechanic from a ricochet in test firing the device from the grounded plane in the firing pits, although it worked for awhile, Garros' device was crude and doomed to eventual stress failure.

Eventually the stress of the bullets hitting the plates broke his wooden prop and he landed behind enemy lines and was captured. The Germans captured his plane, gave it to Dutchman Anthony Fokker who came up with a working mechanical interrupter cam where the engine interrupted the gun from firing when the prop blade was in front of the barrel. That gave them an incredible "Fokker Scourge" advantage they enjoyed until the Triple Entente came up with its own hydraulic interrupter gear a year later. (In WW1, the Germans and Austro-Hungarian empire were called "The allies" while the powers that opposed them were known as "The Triple Entente". It was only in WW2 that we became known as "The Allies").

The point is, if the many multiple chambers of my harmonica block concept were grouped close enough together so that the loaded one to the left of the barrel had the rare occasion to chainfire, the angle milled in the receiver just left of the forcing cone, would harmlessly deflect the soft lead ball away from the receiver. Just like the angled deflector plates deflected the much more powerful bullets on Garros' propeller.
Only Garros was using high powered rifle cartridges in his machine gun. I'd be using much less powerful black powder, plus if it did chainfire, it would never have compression coming out of the harmonica block and would only go a short distance with little power.

Still, it would be a good idea to stay totally behind my concept harmonica gun when it was being fired. Just to be on the safe side.


.
__________________
"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; September 13, 2011 at 05:46 AM.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old September 13, 2011, 05:23 AM   #79
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Stephanie B wrote:
I don't know if there is the extra room to bore out the center of the cylinder to add a coil spring. Even if there is, would there be an issue with regard to keeping the cylinder aligned with no wobble as the cylinder rotates, the base pin/piston comes back as the cylinder rotates?
In analyzing Akumabito's concept rendering, it wouldn't be necessary to put the gas piston rebound spring around the piston inside the cylinder's center hole. The gas piston rebound spring could be put in the gas cylinder itself.
All that would have to be done is a gas tap hole drilled up through the bottom of the frame past the arbor channel in the frame and into the barrel.
Then the hole drilled through the arbor channel's bottom would have to be tapped and plugged and the front of the arbor hole in the frame would also have to be tapped and plugged. A newly made shorter arbor pin/piston with a rebound spring on it is then inserted into the hole that has now become a gas chamber. So contrary to Akumabito's concept rendering, the rebound spring for the gas piston would NOT have to go in the middle of the cylinder.

I don't see a problem with the linear motion of the arbor pin/piston's reciprocating a short distance back and forth inside the center hole of the cylinder causing it to affect the cylinder rotating or causing wobble. If used as Akumabito conceived it, the pawl against the ratchet in the rear of the cylinder and the barrel in the front would serve to hold the cylinder securely in place against wobble. And even if the cylinder DID wobble a teeny tiny fraction of a bit in rotation, once it stopped its rotation and was aligned with the barrel and locked in place ready to fire, it wouldn't matter.

Actually except for his placement of the piston return spring, Akumabito's concept is really good. The only thing I worry about is not the force of the system that could be adjusted by powder load, but the SPEED of the non delayed system being only slowed down by the gas piston spring, the hammer mainspring and the weight of the hammer possibly not being enough to slow the operation sufficiently. Hopefully there would be enough friction and delay to prevent parts breakage, galling of metal parts and cylinder over travel. No real way to tell without building one and testing it.

Quote:
Stephanie B wrote:

Akumabito's idea for a gas piston might be easier, for then you're not messing around with the base pin, nor are you drilling out the cylinder and frame to accommodate a recoil spring. It looks a little funky with the gas cylinder on top, but there would be less need to modify the revolver to try it out.
I agree it might be easier to build it that way, but I just can't get behind making a Kalashnikov "AK" muzzleloading, semi-auto 1858 Remington. It just looks too modern of an adaptation and wrong looking to me. I want something that still preserves the Victorian "Steampunk" look of what might have been back then. Not something off an AK47 from today.

I think the very first experiment I will try is to get some extra nipples and drill them out to a larger touch hole diameter to allow more gas to pass out the rear of the nipples, which would blow the spent cap off the nipple, which would push the hammer back, hopefully operating the system and we will see if that is too fast a speed and if any problems develop. Then if that doesn't work, I will know that a cap directly blowing back against the hammer is too rapid and violent an action for the system to operate properly.

In that case my next experiment would be to make Akumabito's internal to the frame gas cylinder and try that using a strong return spring on the gas piston to hopefully slow the action down. At least any mods I would do would be mostly inside the revolver and not able to be seen. Then if that didn't work, those mods I did to try using his concept would not interfere with me using the same revolver to build and test my zig zag recoiling cylinder system on. Except I would have to put a plug in the barrel where I drilled the gas tap hole in trying his concept. Or else I'd have to go to the hassle of threading on a new barrel.

As soon as I get an old beater 1858 Remington repro, I think that's going to be my approach when I get the time to get around to experimenting with this.

.
__________________
"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; September 13, 2011 at 05:59 AM.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old September 13, 2011, 12:00 PM   #80
akumabito
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2011
Posts: 13
Hiya everyone, Akumabito here from the BrassGoggles forum. I just signed up here because of Bill's project. Thought that this place was better suited to in-depth discussion of firearm tech than the steampunk forum I normally post in. I gotta say I just like bouncing ideas back and forth. I don't actually know a whole lot about firearms. So I guess my quick renderings are what happens when "non-gun-people" start shouting suggestions on gun smithing..

I should probably also add that I've only shot a few guns in my life, and that was quite a few years ago.. Plus, I've never fired a black powder revolver before, nor have I ever even seen an 1858 model revolver in real life, so my understanding of how they fit together and work pretty much comes from pictures on the net and a few YouTube videos. I just enjoy crazy mental excercises I suppose.. and it doesn't get much crazier than an automatic revolver..

Anyhow, could anyone tell me what the diameter is of the pin that holds the cylinder in place? And is there enough material in the frame of the gun as well as the cylinder to drill a slightly larger hole there? For an all-internal solution, I'm pretty sure you'd need a little more space to work with..

By the way, I just discovered that there are no new things under the Sun: I just came across US Patent 4,197,784 - Pretty much the same idea, only in over-barrel style, rather than underneath.. I could not find any references to any prototypes being built, but I suppose it works without causing damage to the gun by cycling too quickly..
akumabito is offline  
Old September 13, 2011, 01:50 PM   #81
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Goodness, what a lot of things to talk about here. But it's good to hear people thinking (!) about new ideas for old things. I have a few comments.

The original subject, a harmonica-fed weapon, is novel to be sure, but in a way, the harmonica part is just the cylinder flattened out, so to speak. It can certainly be considered a muzzle-loader as long as it loads from the front, even though there were metallic cartridges that loaded from the front, too, but those were mainly transitional applications until S&W patents ran out. At any rate, I'm not sure the harmonica arrangement has any particular advantage over a cylinder (which is the same thing rolled up, if you follow me). In fact, the biggest disadvantage is that you have something that sticks out on one side--and then the other. This disadvantage appears in any other firearm with a side mounted magazine and there have been a few over the years, so maybe it isn't the disadvantage I imagine it is. However, I'm thinking more along the lines of a shoulder fired weapon, rather than a heavy tripod or carraige mounted affair. Merely a matter of scale.

You would have to have a system to engage the charger (let's call it a charger) when the gun is loaded. Minor detail. But keep in mind that there is a fine line between something that works and something that doesn't. That applies to modern firearms, too.

If this beast is to be semi-automatic, I'd say that some major redesign of the moving parts might be in order. Civil War period weapons were not expected to be operated at high speed, and neither were the early cartridge revolvers. Ask anyone who's done a lot of fanning with their Single Action Army. It's more a question of design than anything else.

But don't give up hope. There is always something appealing about things like this and the gun world is full of them, even though most of them only seem that way at the distance of 75 or 100 years, like for example, a pistol with a fixed magazine charged with stripper clips. Seen one of them lately?

Seeing the photos from the movie, if that's what it was, it suggests to me that the idea is a natural for a slide-action (pump action) rifle. You could utilize the harmonica charger, keep it at five or six rounds and it's a natural for primative hunting, right up there with a slur bow. Remember, someone invented a repeating crossbow in time to be used in the Russo-Japanese war, only I don't remember which side tried it out.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old September 13, 2011, 04:51 PM   #82
Stephanie B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2008
Location: NWern SE Missouri
Posts: 280
Quote:
Quote:
Akumabito's idea for a gas piston might be easier, for then you're not messing around with the base pin, nor are you drilling out the cylinder and frame to accommodate a recoil spring. It looks a little funky with the gas cylinder on top, but there would be less need to modify the revolver to try it out.
I agree it might be easier to build it that way, but I just can't get behind making a Kalashnikov "AK" muzzleloading, semi-auto 1858 Remington. It just looks too modern of an adaptation and wrong looking to me. I want something that still preserves the Victorian "Steampunk" look of what might have been back then. Not something off an AK47 from today.
Understood, but as a "proof of concept" model, the top-mounted gas cylinder might be a good starting point. "Can you use a gas piston to push back the hammer and not end up slamming the crap out of the gun's internals", for instance. And you can tinker with fewer mods to the frame.

On the other side of the coin, the lever arm of the hammer is longer for a top-mounted gas cylinder. Just eyeballing from my Colt-clone SAA, a top-mounted gas piston would have a 2" lever on the hammer pivot pin, while a base pin gas piston would have a 1" lever to work on, so you'd be less likely to beat the crap out the mechanism.
Stephanie B is offline  
Old September 14, 2011, 03:45 AM   #83
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Akumabito wrote:
Hiya everyone, Akumabito here from the BrassGoggles forum. I just signed up here because of Bill's project. Thought that this place was better suited to in-depth discussion of firearm tech than the steampunk forum I normally post in. I gotta say I just like bouncing ideas back and forth. I don't actually know a whole lot about firearms. So I guess my quick renderings are what happens when "non-gun-people" start shouting suggestions on gun smithing..

I should probably also add that I've only shot a few guns in my life, and that was quite a few years ago.. Plus, I've never fired a black powder revolver before, nor have I ever even seen an 1858 model revolver in real life, so my understanding of how they fit together and work pretty much comes from pictures on the net and a few YouTube videos. I just enjoy crazy mental excercises I suppose.. and it doesn't get much crazier than an automatic revolver..

Anyhow, could anyone tell me what the diameter is of the pin that holds the cylinder in place? And is there enough material in the frame of the gun as well as the cylinder to drill a slightly larger hole there? For an all-internal solution, I'm pretty sure you'd need a little more space to work with..

By the way, I just discovered that there are no new things under the Sun: I just came across US Patent 4,197,784 - Pretty much the same idea, only in over-barrel style, rather than underneath.. I could not find any references to any prototypes being built, but I suppose it works without causing damage to the gun by cycling too quickly.
Let me be the first to welcome you to The Firing Line Forums Akumabito.
Glad to see you here.


For someone who says they don't know much about firearms, has only shot a few guns in their life, never fired a black powder revolver and never actually seen nor held a 1858 Remington revolver.....you certainly do well at grasping gun concepts, conceiving your own gun concepts and doing gun renderings. You're a naturally gifted engineer and you'll fit right in here.

I don't know if the Netherlands allow you to own a muzzleloading revolver, but if they do, after you are here for awhile and learn more about them, you'll be wanting to get one of your own.

To answer your question on the diameter of the cylinder's arbor pin, I haven't used a micrometer on it, so I don't know its exact diameter, but it's approx 1/4 inch in diameter. On its rounded rear end area the pin is totally round for approx 11/16's of an inch in length. But after that the entire arbor pin is stepped to a flattened bottom for the rest of most of its length. The hole in the frame for the arbor pin is totally round though where we would want to make the gas cylinder. I don't think you would need to drill out a larger area either in the frame nor the cylinder for what we are conceiving of doing. The cylinder is fine like it is and although the frame area that we want to make be a gas cylinder is small, it will work as long as a short stroke piston (ala M1 carbine) is used rather than a long stroke piston. Because the gas cylinder would be no longer than 3/4 to 1 inch in length....necessitating a short stroke inertia type piston.

I looked up patent #4,197,784 that you mentioned and found a picture of it that I posted below. Showing its over the barrel gas cylinder and piston to modify a cartridge revolver to semi-auto action. But we must remember, that without a working prototype, we don't know if this patent would have worked well or at all considering the concerns needed to slow down the operation to prevent breaking and galling of metal parts that were originally designed to be operated at slow manual speeds. It's concept may work, or may work temporarily until stress breaks or damages parts, or might not work at all. Without a working prototype put to repeated tests to find out, we just don't know how valid the operation of this patent would be.



Although the above was an over the barrel gas piston for a cartridge revolver, it was remarkably similar to your concept for an over the barrel "AK" gas cylinder for modifying the 1858 Remington muzzleloading revolver into a semi-auto action.....



Your rendering at the Steampunk brass goggles forum for a shock absorbing gas piston/cylinder that could help to delay the action is very good too. Although unfortunately there is not enough room to use it if we used your concept of using the frame of the 1858 Remington modified to be a gas cylinder. But it definitely could be used in an over the barrel gas cylinder. Your rendering was a good idea for slowing down a gas piston's operative speed.......



Again, for someone who claims to not know much about guns, you have the mind of a firearms engineer! I understand what your rendering concept does. The first segment of the piston comes back and compresses a spring, then for the time it takes to compress that spring, and before that spring being compressed works to move the secondary segment piston to the rear against another spring, there is a delay caused by virtue of the first spring has to become tensioned enough to move the secondary piston segment. This gives the necessary delay needed to soften the operation and lower the speed. Then as that first spring compresses, when it reaches a certain point of compression, it will press against and cause the secondary piston segment to move rearward where that secondary piston segment also compresses a spring even further slowing the action down on the secondary piston segment before it cocks the hammer. You continue to impress me with your concepts Akumabito. If you aren't an engineer, you should be. Strike that, no matter what your vocation is, you are still a naturally gifted engineer!

Akumabito, this evening I took a lot of pictures of my 1858 Remington to try and show how it could be modified to your first concept below....



But it's very late here, I'm tired, and will have to post them in a following post.


.
__________________
"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; September 14, 2011 at 04:39 AM.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old September 14, 2011, 09:07 AM   #84
akumabito
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2011
Posts: 13
I dug around the internet a little more.. Seems the 'official' data on the arbor pin talks about a .222" diameter, so 5.64mm then. A quarter inch would be 6.35mm. I've looked at a few more pictures, and I think the ground flat arbor pin isn't going to be of much use. A hollow replacement arbor pin should be easy enough to fabricate though.

The more I think about it, the more I'm sure this is actually a really easy modification. And that's capital E easy; machining the parts needed shouldn't take more than a few minutes, really. Fine tuning the mechanism could take a little longer, but it's still pretty much a lazy Sunday afternoon project..

Here's a quick schematic view of the parts of the modified arbor pin, and how they go together, both in side view as well as top down view. It's pretty much self-explanatory, I suppose. I left out the spring in my drawing, but you know where it goes..

The dimensions are bound to be incorrect - I worked off the assumption a pin diameter of 6mm would be ok, gave it a 1mm wall thickness. The length of the hollow pin is 100mm, 110 if you include the head of the pin..

akumabito is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 03:48 AM   #85
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Blue Train wrote:
You would have to have a system to engage the charger (let's call it a charger) when the gun is loaded.
Absolutely Blue Train. If by the "charger" you mean the same as the harmonica block....absolutely you would have to have a system to engage it in the receiver so it could be fed through the receiver as it fired.

Quote:
Blue Train wrote:
If this beast is to be semi-automatic, I'd say that some major redesign of the moving parts might be in order. Civil War period weapons were not expected to be operated at high speed, and neither were the early cartridge revolvers. Ask anyone who's done a lot of fanning with their Single Action Army. It's more a question of design than anything else.
You're absolutely right Blue Train. It is a question of design more than anything else. With the semi-auto revolver concept, that design has to be slowed down to avoid breakage of parts and for the system to operate properly. With the tripod mounted harmonica gun, whether hand cranked or gas operated, it is all about the geared design to draw the harmonica block through the receiver.

Quote:
Blue Train wrote:
But don't give up hope. There is always something appealing about things like this and the gun world is full of them, even though most of them only seem that way at the distance of 75 or 100 years, like for example, a pistol with a fixed magazine charged with stripper clips. Seen one of them lately?
Yes I have and I used to own one. The Steyr Hahn fixed mag, stripper clip loaded model 1912, delayed blowback pistol. I referenced the Steyr hahn in my earlier posts in this thread concerning slowing down the operation of my muzzleloading semi-auto revolver concept, as an excellent example of a system that on the Steyr uses angled lugs on the barrel with corresponding angled slots in the slide, to slow down and delay the system so it can operate effectively. Just like the angled slots on a Webley Fosbery style cylinder on my muzzleloading semi-auto revolver concept would do.....



Quote:
Blue Train wrote:
Seeing the photos from the movie, if that's what it was, it suggests to me that the idea is a natural for a slide-action (pump action) rifle. You could utilize the harmonica charger, keep it at five or six rounds and it's a natural for primative hunting, right up there with a slur bow. Remember, someone invented a repeating crossbow in time to be used in the Russo-Japanese war, only I don't remember which side tried it out.
If you're speaking of the brass frame, Captain Nemo designed (supposedly) harmonica rifles, yes they were from the 2005 movie "Mysterious Island".
It's not a semi-auto or full auto concept, but nonetheless an excellent idea you have on the slide action Blue Train. The fore end slides moves back, has a straight gear track in it that turns a round gear that acts upon the other straight gear track on the harmonica block, which advances the harmonica block to the next chamber. Good idea and much faster than having to take one hand off the weapon to turn a rotating trigger guard crank to advance the harmonica block/"charger" to the next chamber like was done in the 2005 Mysterious Island movie rifles. I like your idea. Good thinking!

Funny you should mention the repeating crossbow. I was just today talking with my dive buddy and partner in some of my gun projects about utilizing the repeating magazine concept of the repeating crossbow applied to an underwater spear gun that omitted the bow and string (too much water resistance) but still utilized the lever concept to pull back the rubber bands and utilized the multiple spear repeating magazine concept too. Only I envisioned it with the ability to reload multiple spears quickly, but not fire the spears automatically at the end of the lever travel. Instead it would reload only and have a regular trigger. Here's pictures of the Manchurian repeating crossbow design that inspired me to that underwater spear gun idea. The ancient Romans had a similar design as well as another one that used an Archimedean screw groove to rotate a bolt/spear into position. Almost like the angled archimedean screw grooves in a rotary Ruger 10/22 magazine.

Ancient martial weapons are amazing aren't they? Both mechanical ballista style and black powder style. Principles used thousands of years ago in a rotary magazine for a repeating Roman crossbow being used today in firearm magazines. Never ceases to amaze me. Except for the addition of gun powder, not too much new under the sun from ancient concepts. We can learn a lot from studying them.






and an excellent link to videos of repeating crossbows and how to build them.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&f...&v=Vf97Fn11_Lc

(My apologies to admin for temporarily deviating with crossbows from black powder subjects )

Good analyzing on the subject of this thread and great ideas on the manual slide action for advancing the harmonica block/"charger" Blue Train. Thanks and keep those ideas coming!






.
__________________
"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; September 15, 2011 at 05:08 AM.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 04:18 AM   #86
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Stephanie B wrote:
Understood, but as a "proof of concept" model, the top-mounted gas cylinder might be a good starting point. "Can you use a gas piston to push back the hammer and not end up slamming the crap out of the gun's internals", for instance. And you can tinker with fewer mods to the frame.
You're right Stephanie. After you posted your question, I showed the rendering Akumabito posted at the brass goggles forum showing his concept for a shock absorbing gas piston. That might help keep the system from slamming the gun's internals as you mentioned. Then in a later post Akumabito showed us his concept for a shock absorbing gas piston that replaces the cylinder arbor pin. But I have my doubts about the viability of that one....but I'll address that in my reply to his post on that.

Quote:
Stephanie B wrote:
On the other side of the coin, the lever arm of the hammer is longer for a top-mounted gas cylinder. Just eyeballing from my Colt-clone SAA, a top-mounted gas piston would have a 2" lever on the hammer pivot pin, while a base pin gas piston would have a 1" lever to work on, so you'd be less likely to beat the crap out the mechanism.
Excellent observation Stephanie. When I was examining my '58 Remington, I noticed that too. The rearmost hole in the frame for the rounded tail end of the arbor pin, in the hammer track and below the hammer face.....is as you noted,....far down on the hammer and therefore low on the arc the hammer makes. Which would not give a good mechanical advantage to the arbor pin/gas piston pushing the hammer back to cock it. It can do it, but it isn't a good mechanical advantage since the arbor pin/gas piston is so low on the hammer and also as you noted, the arbor pin/piston does not have to travel far to cock the hammer in that instance. Now that might be an advantage for a short stroke gas piston not having to travel far, but it isn't an advantage to delaying and slowing down the system's operation. (This stuff DO get complicated doesn't it? ). But that's one of the challenging things to me about it.

Also as you noted, if the gas cylinder was instead located on top of the barrel, the gas piston would have to travel farther to cock the hammer because it is located up higher on the arc of the hammer. Making the piston travel further to cock the hammer and giving the gas piston time to slow down before the hammer was fully cocked. Hopefully delaying the operation....(in theory anyway).

Excellent observation Stephanie. I like how you think. Keep it coming!


.
__________________
"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 September 15, 2011, 04:37 AM   #87
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Akumabito wrote:
I dug around the internet a little more.. Seems the 'official' data on the arbor pin talks about a .222" diameter, so 5.64mm then. A quarter inch would be 6.35mm. I've looked at a few more pictures, and I think the ground flat arbor pin isn't going to be of much use. A hollow replacement arbor pin should be easy enough to fabricate though.

The more I think about it, the more I'm sure this is actually a really easy modification. And that's capital E easy; machining the parts needed shouldn't take more than a few minutes, really. Fine tuning the mechanism could take a little longer, but it's still pretty much a lazy Sunday afternoon project..

Here's a quick schematic view of the parts of the modified arbor pin, and how they go together, both in side view as well as top down view. It's pretty much self-explanatory, I suppose. I left out the spring in my drawing, but you know where it goes..

The dimensions are bound to be incorrect - I worked off the assumption a pin diameter of 6mm would be ok, gave it a 1mm wall thickness. The length of the hollow pin is 100mm, 110 if you include the head of the pin.

Ingenious idea of building an internal gas piston into the arbor pin Akumabito.
I understand exactly how you plan for it to work. I have some observations and two questions about it.

I noticed in this concept that you abandoned your earlier shock absorbing dual piston segments that you showed in your earlier first shock absorbing gas cylinder/piston. That will mean this piston doesn't delay to slow down the operation like your other one would.

In looking at the gas tap hole in the arbor pin/gas cylinder, even if you align that hole with the hole in the bottom of the barrel, how are you going to stop gas leakage between the arbor pin cylinder and the barrel at that point? That juncture where the gas cylinder's hole to tap gas from the hole drilled in the bottom of the barrel, has to be leak free so no gas is lost. The pin has to be removable to take off the cylinder, so you can't weld the pin to the barrel. So how do you propose to seal the area between where the barrel gas hole and the cylinder's gas hole align?

Just aligning them so the bottom hole on the barrel is over the top of the gas cylinder's gas hole would get some gas into the cylinder, but you will have inconsistent pressure from shot to shot and leakage problems at that juncture.

The other question I have is,....the piston being so thin in diameter to be able to fit inside what is now a very small diameter tube inside the arbor pin, would that piston be too thin and delicate to stand up to the stress of operation of it flying back to push against and cock the hammer? It is only going to be about as thick as some firing pins. Unless it was made out of titanium or some really strong material, and even then.....I wonder if it being that small a diameter will take the stress of operation of repeatedly pushing against the hammer without bending and then breaking or jamming from bending? Like trying to push a weight with a piece of wire.




.
__________________
"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; September 15, 2011 at 05:16 AM.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 08:03 AM   #88
akumabito
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2011
Posts: 13
How would a set of O-rings hold up? If they aren't blown apart right away, they might work, although I'm pretty sure they'll need frequent changing. But then, BP weapons need a frequent cleaning anyhow, so that should not be too much of an issue..

I didn't include the 'shock absorber' idea here because of space issues. Hypothetically, you could still add it, if you can find the right springs. The problem is going to be with material thickness - the already thin push rod would need to be hollow rather than solid, and the pin of the shock absorber would be half the diameter.. that can't be good news for strength.

If it'll break or bend I can't say without testing..

Actually, you can go ahead and test it without doing any mods to the gun. Simply remove the arbor pin and cylinder, and try to push back the hammer with a rod of roughly the same diameter as I used. Keep in mind that in my sketch, the rod is actually fairly well supported: at max push it only sticks out of the arbor pin by an inch. any bending or breaking would have to occur in that last inch.

How long is the arbor pin anyhow? I sort of took a wild guess at around 4 inches or so.. If space allows it, I can probably adjust the design somewhat if breaking or bending is an issue.. I think I could move the end colar back, extend the rear of the push rod in a ticker diameter, move the spring forward.. hmm, hang on, back to the drawing board.. brb
akumabito is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 08:26 AM   #89
akumabito
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2011
Posts: 13
Well that was easy enough.. again, the dimensions are bound to be incorrect, I'm just working off guestimates here.. I modified the push rod, it's now double the diameter of the original design. 4mm, that's about 1/6 of an inch - I don't think it'll bend when pushing the hammer back. I also added the O-rings here..

akumabito is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 10:58 AM   #90
Stephanie B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2008
Location: NWern SE Missouri
Posts: 280
Bill wrote:
Quote:
....the piston being so thin in diameter to be able to fit inside what is now a very small diameter tube inside the arbor pin, would that piston be too thin and delicate to stand up to the stress of operation of it flying back to push against and cock the hammer?
That also occurred to me. The piston would end up being about the size of a finishing nail and what I remember about those is how easy it was to bend them. It's going to require pretty good support. I don't know how much it will matter that as the piston pushes on the hammer, it also has to slide a bit along the inside face of the hammer strut (excuse me if my terminology is off).

Just going by holding a cheap micrometer alongside the hammer and going from full down to full cock on my SAA clone, it would seem that the piston is going to have to both push back roughly 1.2" and slide about a quarter of an inch along the hammer, and it's going to be doing that at some speed/force. (The distances may be different for a Remington `58, but probably not by that much. ) Seems like a lot to expect a small-diameter pin to do.

I also wonder how many shots the piston will be good for, given that BP can be kind of nasty stuff. There are a number of little clearances in Aki's concept. If the piston cruds up somewhere along its length of travel, then the weapon is out of commission until it can be torn down. And if scratches build up along the surfaces of the piston and cylinder, would it then foul even faster? Or is it possible to design the gas face of the piston so that it tends to self-clean the inside of the gas cylinder?

(I don't know anything about machining stuff.)
Stephanie B is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 11:21 AM   #91
aarondhgraham
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 7,065
There was this old movie,,,

The Crimson Pirate Starring Burt Lancaster.

In it's last battle scene,,,
They had affixed a bunch of flintlock rifles onto a rotating wagon wheel thingie.

As the wheel was turned each rifle went off when it hit the top.

Even as a young kid I remember thinking,,,
Could this actually work?

Aarond
__________________
Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once.
Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it?
Combat: "A Silent Cry"
Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time)
aarondhgraham is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 12:31 PM   #92
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Wow, this stuff is starting to go over my head but nevertheless, I have a few more things to say (not really ideas!).

I've never owned one but apparently percussion revolving rifles were not that popular, or more correctly, not that common. Given the relatively short period of percussion firearms, far and away most of them were produced for military use, a minor war occuring during the period, and perhaps they were too dear for the military and they had other competiton already by then, from cartridge firearms. However, much that might be true, I'd have to say that one would have to stick with the harmonica block (as a charging device) with built in percussion nipples, or otherwise you wouldn't have a muzzleloader. Strickly speaking, however, I don't know that you would absolutely have to use black powder just because it's a muzzleloader, provided it is built to withstand smokeless pressures. But that might be cheating and wouldn't be as much fun to watch.

I had mentioned that I was seeing as a shoulder fired weapon but you somewhere were thinking of it as a tripod mounted, heavier weapon. Naturally that makes a big difference. Without going into specifics, it should go without saying that when the weapon is heavier and even more so if the caliber, meaning bore diameter, is larger, it changes the dynamics of the whole operation. For one thing, extra weight will tend to dampen the recoil, which is a good thing, for it looks like a front-end loaded harmonica charger primed with percussion caps would take a lot of thrashing about and still be reliable. Both the cap and the charge and bullet have to stay in place. So that lets out any form of recoil system to make the thing work. One probably couldn't think of it in the same way as the Webley-Fosbery. Back to the drawing board.

A gas system is about all that's left, I guess. But there's hope but it looks like a fresh design is in order.

There have been gas operated systems utilizing something other than a box magazine. The Lewis Gun comes to mind. It had a rather slow cyclic rate (as a machine gun) but the idea here is to come up with something that will make the thing work without a violent action. A few (automatic)guns, even made in some quantity, were known for having a violent action. No, I think the real challenge of this project is to devise a system that will operate semi-automatically using the proposed charging system of a harmonica block.

Well, that's it. I'm all out of ideas except that I'm starting to think of accordians and I'm sure there's something useful we could come up with along those lines.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 03:01 PM   #93
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Akumabito wrote:
Well that was easy enough.. again, the dimensions are bound to be incorrect, I'm just working off guestimates here.. I modified the push rod, it's now double the diameter of the original design. 4mm, that's about 1/6 of an inch - I don't think it'll bend when pushing the hammer back. I also added the O-rings here..

Hmmm, interesting Akumabito. This concept of your would certainly avoid heavy modifications to the revolver. Except the lockwork for the trigger still has to be modified so that the hammer stays back and locks at full cock while the trigger is still depressed. Then when the trigger is released, the trigger resets and is ready to drop the hammer when the trigger is functioned again.

My main concern about this concept is whether the O ring will make an adequate seal between the gas hole in the barrel and the gas hole in the gas cylinder? I've been "bit" before from the flame and bits of burning black powder coming out between the barrel to cylinder gap. It even cut the cuff of one of my shirt cuffs once on my off hand when I wasn't careful enough to keep it out from under the barrel to cylinder gap area.
So I know how that force can cut. It can even eventually cut metal after repeated firings. I've seen flame cuts on the underside of the top strap just above the forcing cone of well used revolvers from that flame cutting force.

I couldn't say absolutely for sure without seeing it tested, but the probability of that O ring between the gas hole in the barrel and the gas hole in the gas cylinder blowing right out or being blast cut into worthlessness is very high.

That's a shame too, because except for that your arbor pin/gas cylinder has really good potential and like I said, just for itself, requires very little modification to the revolver except for drilling a gas hole in the barrel and modifying the lock work for the rebounding hammer to stay cocked while the trigger was still depressed until the trigger was released to reset it for the next shot. Now if there were just some way to seal those two gas holes at the junction where they come together more effectively without using an O ring....

I thought about something like this. There is a front plug for the gas cylinder screwing in to block the front of the gas cylinder.....before you install that plug you insert a cone shaped piece into the front of the gas tube. That cone piece gets pushed up into the gas hole and is forced up in there (like a piece of flared copper tubing gets tight in a plumbing line) when the plug is screwed into the end of the gas cylinder. Once that cone shaped piece is inserted upwards into the gas hole of the tube, the front plug being screwed in wedges it up there tightly. Forming an effective gas seal. Then as it comes out of the top of the gas tube, that same cone shaped piece is forced into the gas hole in the bottom of the barrel tightly by that same front plug being screwed into the gas tube.....so it also is gas leak sealed against the barrel like a piece of flared copper tubing being tightly wedged in plumbing.

The only problem with that idea of mine is that even if it worked, it would be difficult if not almost impossible to take back apart again to remove the arbor pin/gas tube to take the cylinder off. Because once the cone was wedged into place in both the gas tube and in the bottom of the barrel, it would be very difficult to remove with this tiny small cone being inside the already small diameter arbor pin tube, jammed upward in that tube into the bottom of the barrel.

We have to find a way to effectively seal that gas tap junction without using an O ring Akumabito, and one that can still easily be disassembled. Then it might work. Perhaps something as simple as a threaded rod drilled with an L shaped gas hole in it screwing up from the bottom of the gas tube into the bottom of the barrel which would form an effective gas seal juncture between the arbor pin/as cylinder and the gas hole in the barrel. The threaded rod could be unscrewed so it disengaged from the bottom of the barrel to allow removing the arbor pin/gas tube, so the cylinder could be removed. You do better renderings than I can Akumabito, could you render up something like that?



.
__________________
"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; September 15, 2011 at 10:16 PM.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 03:49 PM   #94
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Stephanie B wrote:
.....I don't know how much it will matter that as the piston pushes on the hammer, it also has to slide a bit along the inside face of the hammer strut (excuse me if my terminology is off). Just going by holding a cheap micrometer alongside the hammer and going from full down to full cock on my SAA clone, it would seem that the piston is going to have to both push back roughly 1.2" and slide about a quarter of an inch along the hammer, and it's going to be doing that at some speed/force. (The distances may be different for a Remington `58, but probably not by that much. ) Seems like a lot to expect a small-diameter pin to do.
I know what you mean Stephanie. The piston has to push against the hammer strut's forward side curved shape. When the piston first contacts the hammer and as it starts to push the hammer back, the piston will "ride" and "slide" along the curved shape of the hammer strut's arc. One advantage of that that I hadn't thought about until just now upon reading your post, is that the sliding of the piston along that hammer strut's arc, might allow for some delay in the operation to slow it down because the piston has to slide along the hammer's forward curved arc shape as it pushes the hammer back. Which would be a good thing, helping to offset the violent abruptness of the operation and slightly delay it. (In theory anyway). Great observation Stephanie! Your observation made me think of a delay advantage that would be built in to the operation due to that piston sliding along the forward side of the hammer's arc shape. Thanks!

Quote:
Stephanie B wrote:
I also wonder how many shots the piston will be good for, given that BP can be kind of nasty stuff. There are a number of little clearances in Aki's concept. If the piston cruds up somewhere along its length of travel, then the weapon is out of commission until it can be torn down. And if scratches build up along the surfaces of the piston and cylinder, would it then foul even faster? Or is it possible to design the gas face of the piston so that it tends to self-clean the inside of the gas cylinder?
Good points Stephanie. Of course one thing Akumabito would need that isn't shown in his rendering, is a gas relief port hole drilled in a position so that when the piston head passed a certain point in the gas tube, that the gas was then allowed to port out of the gas tube once the head of the piston passed that gas relief port hole. Akumabito, you need to add that gas relief port hole to your gas tube.

Using a less fouling, non smoking black powder substitute, fouling could be minimized from what it would be if using standard black powder. But I know what you mean Stephanie, and even smokeless powder can eventually foul a gas tube and bind a piston on even a modern semi-auto action using smokeless powder if not cleaned adequately.

But perhaps the length of the piston's rod, beyond the piston's head, could be spiral cut, so that as it reciprocated back and forth within the gas tube, the spiral cuts would scour and break up any small amounts of fouling trying to adhere to the tube and then they would blow out the gas relief port hole.



.
__________________
"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 September 15, 2011, 04:35 PM   #95
Jo6pak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2010
Location: West Coast...of WI
Posts: 1,462
Wow, I go on vacation for a few days and the whole design has changed
I like the direction this has gone,

Seems we have deviated into 2 seperate designs, one for a pistol and another for a "machine gun"

For the pistol, I also don't think the arbor pin has the diameter to include a durable piston/spring arrangement as is. But there is nothing saying the design couldn't have a smaller caliber and larger arbor pin in roughly the same sized cylinder. With the gas-tube mounted under the barrel, it may start to look somewhat like a LeMat revolver.
As for delaying the action. I think that Stepshanie's suggestion is the simplest way to go about a remedy.
Another solution, if the over-the-top "AK" system is used. couldn't you just add a locking link (ala, 1911) or camming lug (similar to HKs system) to delay the piston?

Maybe i missed a few points, as I have fallen a bit behind in this thread
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF contributor.

Last edited by Jo6pak; September 15, 2011 at 04:42 PM.
Jo6pak is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 05:30 PM   #96
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Aarondhgraham wrote:
There was this old movie,,,
The Crimson Pirate Starring Burt Lancaster.
In it's last battle scene,,,They had affixed a bunch of flintlock rifles onto a rotating wagon wheel thingie. As the wheel was turned each rifle went off when it hit the top. Even as a young kid I remember thinking,,, Could this actually work?
Hi Aarond, glad to see you here at this thread.
I also liked that movie Aarond. It had some neat inventions shown in it. In addition to the rapid fire rotating flintlock rifles in it, it also had a David Bushnell type of "turtle" (revolutionary war submarine) in it at the very end of the movie.

I can't remember exactly how they had those flintlock rifles configured on the wagon wheel in the movie and whether they were situated in a circle like a Gatling gun or if they were rotated upwards in banks like in one of Leonardo Da Vinci's designs....but the screenwriters were no doubt inspired by Leonardo Da Vinci's "machine gun" designs of banks of rotating barrels. Or perhaps the screenwriters were inspired by Ezra Ripley's early precusor to the rotating barrels Gatling gun, (The Ripley Gun) only using period to the movie flintlock actions instead of percussion caps. As you also considered, I believe they could have actually worked.

Quote from below pic.....
"Da Vinci designed this machine gun in which there are eleven barrels in each tier. When one tier is fired, another tier is loaded, and a third one cools. This weapon shows Leonardo's attempt to constantly create greater fire power."



More pics of Da Vinci's fan type volley fire guns and rotating banks of barrels "machine guns" here.....

http://www.google.com/search?q=Da+Vi...w=1269&bih=679

And check out this boat mounted rotating cannon turret concept of Da Vinci's conceived centuries before the first successful rotating turret of the civil war Union Monitor.





.
__________________
"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; September 15, 2011 at 10:26 PM.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 06:10 PM   #97
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Blue Train wrote:
I'd have to say that one would have to stick with the harmonica block (as a charging device) with built in percussion nipples, or otherwise you wouldn't have a muzzleloader. Strickly speaking, however, I don't know that you would absolutely have to use black powder just because it's a muzzleloader, provided it is built to withstand smokeless pressures.
If we are talking about a hi capacity ammunition weapon, I agree Blue Train that if it is going to be a muzzleloader, the muzzleloaded, percussion nipple for each chamber, harmonica block is the best method to use. I also agree that if the metal the weapon was made out of were modern steels designed to hold the pressures of modern smokeless powders, then it could use smokeless powder instead of or in addition to standard black powder or black powder substitute powders.

Quote:
Blue Train wrote:
I had mentioned that I was seeing as a shoulder fired weapon but you somewhere were thinking of it as a tripod mounted, heavier weapon. Naturally that makes a big difference. Without going into specifics, it should go without saying that when the weapon is heavier and even more so if the caliber, meaning bore diameter, is larger, it changes the dynamics of the whole operation. For one thing, extra weight will tend to dampen the recoil, which is a good thing, for it looks like a front-end loaded harmonica charger primed with percussion caps would take a lot of thrashing about and still be reliable.
We've been discussing rapid fire muzzleloading weapons of all kinds. Shoulder fired rifles, revolvers and tripod/carriage mounted muzzloaders. The main factor them all being rapid fire. Again I agree with you that the harmonica block would seem to be the best method for a high ammunition capacity muzzleloader that fires rapidly.

Quote:
Blue Train wrote:
Both the cap and the charge and bullet have to stay in place. So that lets out any form of recoil system to make the thing work. One probably couldn't think of it in the same way as the Webley-Fosbery.
You could be right about that Blue Train and I share those concerns of yours. And that's the only drawback and fear I have about utilizing the Webley Fosbery type of cylinder in my revolver concept. That the recoiling cylinder might force the ball in the chambers forward or pull the cap off the nipple as the cylinder goes back forward after recoiling. I would hope that tight caps would hold onto the nipples, and that .454 balls tightly squeezed into the chambers would hold the balls in place, but unless and until one was built and tested, there's no way to know for sure.

Quote:
Blue Train wrote:
A gas system is about all that's left, I guess. But there's hope but it looks like a fresh design is in order.
That's why input from you and others to discuss the designs is so helpful.

Quote:
Blue Train wrote:
There have been gas operated systems utilizing something other than a box magazine. The Lewis Gun comes to mind.
But we can't utilize a horizontally configured circle of cartridge ammunition like the Lewis gun used, because since we are using muzzle loaded chambers, those chambers would be pointed in a 360 degree circle like some unsuccessful early percussion revolvers that utilized a horizontal rotating circle of chambers where chambers were pointed directly back towards the shooters rather than a more common vertical circle of chambers.

Quote:
Blue Train wrote:
The idea here is to come up with something that will make the thing work without a violent action.
Exactly.

Quote:
Blue Train wrote:
I think the real challenge of this project is to devise a system that will operate semi-automatically using the proposed charging system of a harmonica block.
I totally agree and my thoughts exactly Blue Train. At least when we are talking about either a shoulder fired or tripod mounted high ammunition capacity, muzzleloading weapon concept. The muzzleloading, one hand held, semi-auto revolver concept can of course continue to use a limited shot capacity round cylinder rather than a high capacity harmonica block.[/quote]

Quote:
Blue Train wrote:
Well, that's it. I'm all out of ideas except that I'm starting to think of accordians and I'm sure there's something useful we could come up with along those lines.
You mean like the Da Vinci accordion guns? And like the multiple barrels in a row fired sequentially by a common fuse train between the barrels and used during the American civil war to protect covered bridges?

Please share you thoughts on how you think accordions might be helpful in the muzzleloading semi-auto or full auto applications we are discussing. Love to hear them.

Thanks for your thoughts and input, keep it coming!



.
__________________
"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; September 15, 2011 at 10:29 PM.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 10:10 PM   #98
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Jo6pak wrote:
Wow, I go on vacation for a few days and the whole design has changed
I like the direction this has gone. Seems we have deviated into 2 seperate designs, one for a pistol and another for a "machine gun".
Hi Jo. Welcome back.

Although we have discussed various rapid fire concepts, you are correct that we seem to be centered for the most part on two BASIC kind of concepts.

1. A muzzleloading revolver modified to semi-auto.

2. EITHER a muzzleloading semi-auto OR a full auto rifle....for the most part mounted on a tripod if we want a high ammunition capacity harmonica block (need a tripod to support the long harmonica block weight).
So although it's two basic design concepts, the tripod mounted one that could be a muzzleloading machine gun could also be a semi-auto too. Either way for that 2nd concept.

Quote:
Jo6pak wrote:
For the pistol, I also don't think the arbor pin has the diameter to include a durable piston/spring arrangement as is. But there is nothing saying the design couldn't have a smaller caliber and larger arbor pin in roughly the same sized cylinder.
I agree about the small diameter of the arbor pin/piston being fragile as Akumabito first rendered it. But he has since increased its size in his latest rendering similar to what you suggested. The problem with that is, that it means the arbor pin hole in the frame, as well as the arbor pin hole in the cylinder, would have to be enlarged. More modification to the revolver which I was hoping to stay away from or at least keep to a minimum which is why I came up with the recoiling zig zag cylinder mod. Which would not require much modification to the revolver's barrel nor frame. Question is, on my zig zag cylinder concept, would the lead balls move forward when the cylinder recoiled and would the caps stay on the nipples when the cylinder went back forward following recoil? Since we don't know that, we are exploring all possible system concepts for modification of the muzzleloading revolver to semi-auto operation.

Quote:
Jo6pak wrote:
As for delaying the action. I think that Stephanie's suggestion is the simplest way to go about a remedy.
Not sure which of Stephanie's suggestions you mean Jo. The over the barrel "AK" style gas cylinder of Akumabito's Stephanie thought would be a good basis to start? Or the observation she made about the arbor pin/piston having to ride along the curve of the hammer which in sliding like that, could act as a delaying action?

Quote:
Jo6pak wrote:
Another solution, if the over-the-top "AK" system is used. couldn't you just add a locking link (ala, 1911) or camming lug (similar to HKs system) to delay the piston?
Not sure I understand what you mean Jo. Do you mean the "swinging link" of the 1911 instead of a "locking link"? If you do mean the "swinging" link, I'm not tracking on how that would help slow down the system. What would you attach the swinging link to? And wouldn't a swinging link cause an up or down movement on whatever it engages to just like it does the barrel of a 1911? Could you please elaborate a bit more on what you mean? I'm trying to visualize but having difficulty understanding that one. Thanks.



.
__________________
"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; September 15, 2011 at 10:34 PM.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 11:09 PM   #99
Bill Akins
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2007
Location: Hudson, Florida
Posts: 1,030
Two self cocking muzzleloaders actually manufactured in the 19th century.
The revolving rifle was clockwork style wind up spring loaded and was select fire for either semi-auto or full auto!
A muzzleloading, revolving rifle, full auto sub machine gun in the 1850's!

Both the muzzleloading revolving rifle and muzzleloading revolving handgun are both operated by a clockwork type of wind up spring mechanism. Both of them were manufactured by the same company "Mershon & Hollingsworth".

There's not a lot of information about them online. I post them here to show that some early 19th century attempts were made to do what I propose can be done better today with less fouling black powder substitutes, but instead of using a clockwork spring mechanism, using gas or recoil forces.

"Mershon & Hollingsworth clockwork self-cocking conversion of Colt 1860"









Here's one that sold on an auction site for $16000,00 and the text that went with that auction....

"Serial no. 3803, .44 caliber. Standard cylinder and 7 1/2-inch barrel with New York markings. Custom brass frame with case-hardened hammer and oil-finished walnut grips. Right side of frame with circular German silver fitting inscribed: Mershon & Hollingsworth/Sept. 8th 1863. Left side of frame fitted with wheel-shaped steel panel cocking device with folding rim. Evidently designed to create a self-cocking revolver similar to the later British Fosbery revolver. Rear of frame with fire-blued lever engaging the hammer and evidently serving as a safety. Elongated hammer.
Condition: Fine. Barrel retains 90% plus blue finish mixed with brown patina. Cylinder retaining much blue finish.
Notes: Probably the only example in existence.
Estimate: 15000 - 20000".


And the muzzleloading revolving cylinder semi or full auto rifle by the same manufacturer. I have no idea how that backwards looking trigger operated. But this is the one that was select fire between semi-auto and full auto!
That raised piece behind the receiver in the smaller photo is not a rear sight, but is the wind up ratcheting lever for the spring to operate the system.



Text for above rifle....

"Mershon and Hollingsworth revolving cylinder automatic rifle. Patented in 1855. A spring mechanisim automatically fired and rotated the cylinder. The trigger could be locked in back position for full automatic fire. To wind up the spring, a ratchet lever is located just behind the receiver. Six shot percussion .40 caliber."

These are very interesting designs, but they are both clockwork style spring loaded to operate the action. I'm not really interested in that type of wind up spring "automaton" mechanism. It's okay but I'm more interested in using recoil or gas operation for a muzzleloading semi-auto or full auto.



.
__________________
"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; September 15, 2011 at 11:31 PM.
Bill Akins is offline  
Old September 16, 2011, 10:02 AM   #100
Stephanie B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2008
Location: NWern SE Missouri
Posts: 280
That double trigger guard leads me to believe that there had to have been a trigger in the second one. The backwards-looking trigger may have been an early fire-selector.

Interesting concept, though. The spring mechanism transforms it into sort of like a hand-held Gatling gun, only with a revolving chamber instead of revolving barrels. It does get away from having to deal with the engineering and timing of a gas-operating system. On the other hand, it's hard for me to imagine that a clockwork-powered operating mechanism would stand up to the rigors of military usage. And given that the .44 Henry and the .56 Spencer metallic cartridges were already developed by 1863, a front-loading repeating rifle had to have been seen, even then, as a technological dead end.
Stephanie B is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

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 02:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.22278 seconds with 8 queries