If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!
To all:
My mention, with regard to Hot Projects now on hold because I've been diagnosed with cancer, of fitting a Siler lock to a hunk of American Walnut which will become the stock of a blackpowder rifle caused narry a ripple from Groups familiar with such things but got me several questions from subscribers to other Groups including this one. As usual, a lot of the comments were negative, such as '...I can't see why someone would waste their time on black powder when they can buy a more accurate rifle for a lot less money..." Others couldn't understand why I was making a flinter when percussion caps were so much better. The interesting point here was their definition of 'better.' :-) But what prompts this message is the thought that the legendary accuracy of black-powder weapons was merely myth. This was presented to me by three or four folks who claimed to be experienced charcoal burners with years of experience with a variety of muzzle-loading weapons. My exposure to black powder dates from WWII when my cousin David and I were allowed to use a Civil War carbine to augment the amount of protein in our family's diet. This rifle, which used percussion caps, was used mostly as a shot gun, to take sitting ducks and geese since neither of us were strong enough to take them on the wing. Also, in so far as I know, there were no restrictions or rationing on black powder, bird-shot, and percussion caps. (We used newspaper for wadding.) But with regard to the issue of accuracy, my grandfather owned a high- precision black-powder target rifle of about .45 caliber that was capable of cutting a clover-shaped 3-shot group at 100 yards and our horribly mistreated Civil War smoke-pole was no slouch when used as a rifle, able to keep all of its shots in about a dinner-plate sized circle at 100 yards... once you'd doped the wind & drop. So where does this fabled accuracy come from? While there are many factors that contribute to the accuracy of a firearm, the main factor in this case has to do with the rifling. Black powder is a relatively low-energy propellant. The old rule of thumb for how much was needed when fring plain round balls was a conical pile of medium-fine grade black powder as high as the ball. Once that amount was determined you would adjust your powder-horn or measure to give you that amount for each shot. Measured with modern-day instruments, this old-fashioned rule of thumb produced a velocity of about 800 feet per second. The critical factor is the rifling, which is cut to give one revolution for every 10 inches of bore. Now here comes the tricky bits. 800 feet per second is 9600 inches per second With rifling off 10 to 1, that's 960 revolutions per second (rps) 960 rps is equal to 57,600 rpm ....and that is one HELL of a lot of stability imparted to that lead ball. Spinning at nearly 60,000 rpm it takes a major input of energy to deflect the ball. And unless the ball is deflected, it will fly true. And that's how you get that 'mythical' accuracy... and discover it isn't a myth at all. There's lots of reasons to NOT use a muzzle-loader... but accuracy isn't one of them. The reason most often give is the amount of work to just load the damn thing. The powder goes in first, your powder- wad, then the ball, then the ball-wad -- more newspaper. The weapon was then half-cocked and the pan charged with fine-grain priming powder, kept in the pan by the lid. The weapon could then be cocked and fired. When the trigger was pulled, the fall of the hammer drives the flint against the hardened-steel portion of the pan's cover, pushing the cover out of the way and generating a stream of sparks which fell into the charge of fine-grain priming powder causing it to ignite. The shape of the priming pan and the presence of a touch-hole though the side of the barrel... aligned with that portion of the barrel charged with gunpowder, ignites the gunpowder. Upon ignition the gunpowder drives the ball down the rifled bore of the barrel... and you've just joined the ranks of the Charcoal Burners of America. Is it fun? Damnbetcha, cowboy! :-) Modern muzzle-loaders offer a host of improvements over traditional cap & ball weapons and are miles above the more primitive 'Flinters'. But if you're into gunsmithing -- at any level -- it's nice to show how it all began, especially when training a youngster in the required safety procedures that must be observed with ANY firearm. By starting with basics, such as a flintlock rifle or pistol, it's pretty easy to show how each improvement carried with it the need for additional safety measures. That exposure, especially with regard to youngsters, provides a handy place to introduce them to the physics of the TONS of force needed to deflect a lead ball less than half an inch in diameter but spinning at nearly sixty THOUSAND rpm. -R.S.Hoover PS -- Here's one for you guys. Do you know of a rifle -- or even just a barreled action -- for the 7.62x39mm round? I'm not interested in an AK-47 (which uses this round) but its ballistics and the low price of the ammunition would appear to make it a good round for a light rifle, suitable for youngsters or women. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!
In article
, " wrote: To all: My mention, with regard to Hot Projects now on hold because I've been diagnosed with cancer, of fitting a Siler lock to a hunk of American Walnut which will become the stock of a blackpowder rifle caused narry a ripple from Groups familiar with such things but got me several questions from subscribers to other Groups including this one. As usual, a lot of the comments were negative, such as '...I can't see why someone would waste their time on black powder when they can buy a more accurate rifle for a lot less money..." Why drive a car with a manual transmission when you can have an automatic instead? Pretty much the same thing. Others couldn't understand why I was making a flinter when percussion caps were so much better. The interesting point here was their definition of 'better.' :-) The canonical response being "when did percussion caps laying about in creek beds become common"? Not that most respondents actually bothered to learn how to chip their own flints from raw stone, mind. But what prompts this message is the thought that the legendary accuracy of black-powder weapons was merely myth. This was presented to me by three or four folks who claimed to be experienced charcoal burners with years of experience with a variety of muzzle-loading weapons. My exposure to black powder dates from WWII when my cousin David and I were allowed to use a Civil War carbine to augment the amount of protein in our family's diet. This rifle, which used percussion caps, was used mostly as a shot gun, to take sitting ducks and geese since neither of us were strong enough to take them on the wing. Also, in so far as I know, there were no restrictions or rationing on black powder, bird-shot, and percussion caps. (We used newspaper for wadding.) But with regard to the issue of accuracy, my grandfather owned a high- precision black-powder target rifle of about .45 caliber that was capable of cutting a clover-shaped 3-shot group at 100 yards Shooting round ball, or conical (or "sugar loaf") patched bullets? and our horribly mistreated Civil War smoke-pole was no slouch when used as a rifle, able to keep all of its shots in about a dinner-plate sized circle at 100 yards... once you'd doped the wind & drop. So where does this fabled accuracy come from? While there are many factors that contribute to the accuracy of a firearm, the main factor in this case has to do with the rifling. Black powder is a relatively low-energy propellant. The old rule of thumb for how much was needed when fring plain round balls was a conical pile of medium-fine grade black powder as high as the ball. Once that amount was determined you would adjust your powder-horn or measure to give you that amount for each shot. Measured with modern-day instruments, this old-fashioned rule of thumb produced a velocity of about 800 feet per second. The critical factor is the rifling, which is cut to give one revolution for every 10 inches of bore. That sounds like a pretty fast twist, especially if we're looking at round ball, and still a little fast for conicals. Round ball usually works better with slower twist barrels, and even the pitch of the grooves varies a bit, depending on caliber. My .50 uses about 1:66, my son's first rifle, a .40 used a 1:48 twist. IIRC, a .60 caliber rifle ran around 1:72. Those are all intended for use with a patched round ball. All flintlocks. Just because we like 'em. Now here comes the tricky bits. 800 feet per second is 9600 inches per second With rifling off 10 to 1, that's 960 revolutions per second (rps) 960 rps is equal to 57,600 rpm ...and that is one HELL of a lot of stability imparted to that lead ball. Spinning at nearly 60,000 rpm it takes a major input of energy to deflect the ball. And unless the ball is deflected, it will fly true. And that's how you get that 'mythical' accuracy... and discover it isn't a myth at all. There's lots of reasons to NOT use a muzzle-loader... but accuracy isn't one of them. The reason most often give is the amount of work to just load the damn thing. The powder goes in first, your powder- wad, then the ball, then the ball-wad -- more newspaper. The weapon was then half-cocked and the pan charged with fine-grain priming powder, kept in the pan by the lid. The weapon could then be cocked and fired. When the trigger was pulled, the fall of the hammer drives The "cock", which holds the flint in its jaws. the flint against the hardened-steel portion of the pan's cover, The "frizzen". pushing the cover out of the way and generating a stream of sparks which fell into the charge of fine-grain priming powder causing it to ignite. The shape of the priming pan and the presence of a touch-hole though the side of the barrel... aligned with that portion of the barrel charged with gunpowder, ignites the gunpowder. Upon ignition the gunpowder drives the ball down the rifled bore of the barrel... and you've just joined the ranks of the Charcoal Burners of America. Is it fun? Damnbetcha, cowboy! :-) Absolutely! Modern muzzle-loaders offer a host of improvements over traditional cap & ball weapons and are miles above the more primitive 'Flinters'. But if you're into gunsmithing -- at any level -- it's nice to show how it all began, especially when training a youngster in the required safety procedures that must be observed with ANY firearm. By starting with basics, such as a flintlock rifle or pistol, it's pretty easy to show how each improvement carried with it the need for additional safety measures. That exposure, especially with regard to youngsters, provides a handy place to introduce them to the physics of the TONS of force needed to deflect a lead ball less than half an inch in diameter but spinning at nearly sixty THOUSAND rpm. -R.S.Hoover PS -- Here's one for you guys. Do you know of a rifle -- or even just a barreled action -- for the 7.62x39mm round? I'm not interested in an AK-47 (which uses this round) but its ballistics and the low price of the ammunition would appear to make it a good round for a light rifle, suitable for youngsters or women. Ruger makes their M77 in 7.62x39. Remington's 799 uses a Zastava-made short action that can be had in the cartridge. The CZ 527 carbine has been offered in it, too. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!
On Nov 18, 6:38*pm, Steve Hix
wrote: That sounds like a pretty fast twist, especially if we're looking at round ball, and still a little fast for conicals. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Boy, does it! I was thinking of a .22 barrel I turned into a muzzle loader some years ago. The barrel I'm working with now is 1 in 44. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!
On Nov 18, 4:11*pm, " wrote:
-R.S.Hoover PS *-- *Here's one for you guys. *Do you know of a rifle -- or even just a barreled action -- for the 7.62x39mm round? *I'm not interested in an AK-47 (which uses this round) but its ballistics and the low price of the ammunition would appear to make it a good round for a light rifle, suitable for youngsters or women. Remington Model 799 Bob. Not cheap, but a bolt action. Monk |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!
In article
, " wrote: On Nov 18, 6:38*pm, Steve Hix wrote: That sounds like a pretty fast twist, especially if we're looking at round ball, and still a little fast for conicals. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Boy, does it! I was thinking of a .22 barrel I turned into a muzzle loader some years ago. The barrel I'm working with now is 1 in 44. That would be about average for a .40 or .45 shooting roundball. I've got a .40 caplock single-shot pistol in .40, and used to have a couple of .40 rifles, one flintlock, one caplock. Any of the three were more accurate than me (doesn't take all that much). One of my sons-in-law has the flintlock in another state now. The rifles would regularly group better off the bench at 50yds than most of the SKS and AK-ish shooters at the range. Nothing wrong with muzzleloaders accuracy at short- to medium range. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin!
On Nov 18, 10:07*pm, Steve Hix
wrote: The rifles would regularly group better off the bench at 50yds than most of the SKS and AK-ish shooters at the range. Nothing wrong with muzzleloaders accuracy at short- to medium range. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Danang, 1967. They ran a trawler ashore near Chu lai. It was loaded with small arms & rpg ammo. Anyone who wanted one of the rifles (SKS) just had to sign in. Transfer was under the 'spoils of war' provisions and once you had the paper-work in hand you could ship the thing back to the States. Several of us got SKS, some opted for AK's. We took them out to the range at Marble Mountain and found we couldn't keep them on the paper at 100yds and got about 50% fliers at 50 yds. I gave mine to... somebody. I figured the thing needed to be bedded but the machine work was so bad you really had to see it to believe it. I've a hunch these weapons were assembled from REJECTED components, since North Vietnam and Red China weren't on very friendly terms at that time. The ammo was okay. Steel cased FMJ, 154gr. But really, the weapons were some kind of a joke. On some the rifling was eccentric... even incomplete in a couple of cases. Threads that ran out of metal near the end; threaded bores that were NOT threaded. There were something like 3500 semi-auto SK's and about 1500 AK's but the Marine Corps SAMMI at Red Beach said he went through 20 SK's without finding enough good parts to assemble ONE good rifle. He's the fellow who opined that they were assembled from junked parts, probably from one of the NORINCO factories that was noted for the low quality of their work. Still, the things WOULD shoot, although some of them had to have the bolt closed by hand after each round. But you really gotta wonder about why they'd go through all the trouble of shipping a trawler-load of junk weapons to their 'allies' in I-Corps. Fulfilling a promise? Or did the ChiComs WANT the NVA's to lose? The best weapon over there -- and the one we had to worry about -- were the M1's we'd given to the French which were captured by Giap & Company. The NVA had quite a few of them, carried only by their best marksmen. Some of them were in Trophy condition, with new stocks, etc. -Bob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Spin ? | Mal | Soaring | 12 | April 3rd 06 06:23 AM |
How Low to Spin?? | Paul M. Cordell | Soaring | 180 | September 14th 04 07:17 PM |
Spin | Toks Desalu | Piloting | 43 | May 11th 04 01:04 PM |
Spin Training | Captain Wubba | Piloting | 25 | April 12th 04 02:11 PM |
Spin | K.P. Termaat | Soaring | 56 | February 11th 04 05:14 PM |