| Author | Post |
|---|
Richard Flanders
PGCA Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 25th, 2006 12:18 am |
|
| Most interesting. Hadn't thought of that. This forum is just too fun. The separation is hardly noticable, just a very fine cracked solder joint on the breech end of the barrels and for 1" to 1.5" down the rib sides, if I remember right after 40 yrs.... I'll have to get it out while in Michigan this fall and look for a hole. I seem to remember the bores being pristine, no pitting. I certainly was surprised for the loads I was making up were only 2" long and very very light, being designed to bring to ground nothing more rugged than an English sparrow or red winged blackbird. It sure popped when it separated; I do remember that much. My ears were ringing good. Glad it wasn't one of the old blue Peters magnum paper loads we had boxes full of back then. I remember that the crack was so thin that it looked like I could just put a clamp gently on the rib and gently heat it with a torch(ahhhh!!)or one of those old heavy soldering irons...a real soldering iron, not a Weller gun, and it would just re-attach I'll take a look this fall at any rate.
|
Richard Flanders
PGCA Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 25th, 2006 12:19 am |
|
Last edited on Sat Mar 25th, 2006 12:20 am by Richard Flanders
|
Richard Flanders
PGCA Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 25th, 2006 12:24 am |
|
| addendum: Does this super secret repair involve a tube of JBWeld?? If so, how did you get it into the hole??!
|
Eric Eis
PGCA Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 983 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 25th, 2006 12:28 am |
|
Richard, yes things have changed since you left, by the way when I was a kid I went to Kirk in Hills church.. It is a very small world ! Eric
PS. You ever get back to MI let me know.
|
Richard Flanders
PGCA Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 25th, 2006 01:04 am |
|
| I come back every November to eat turkey and harvest deer and pheasants in Oxford, Metamora, and Lapeer.... The rest of my family still lives there.
|
Austin Hogan
PGCA Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1600 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 25th, 2006 02:24 am |
|
Richard; I didn't know you were an Antarctican; I did meteorology at South pole 1974 - 1985, in the process, I did aerial remote sensing 77 - 79, visited Camp Vanda in '80 and Beardmore Glacier in 85. My best trip to the ice was aboard Northwind.
I almost did an encore four years ago in retirement; they were short a meteorologist, and I passed my physical, but one of the younger candidates pulled it out on the second try.
Long live Herman Nelson!!
Best, Austin
|
Austin Hogan
PGCA Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1600 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 25th, 2006 02:41 am |
|
Richard: if you are lonesome for the good old days in Antarctica, go to
http://www.BGIUSA.com
and go gown the left side to Historic Imagres
the BG in BGI stands for Bob Gussman; he collects English doubles and Winchesters, and we have been friends for forty years. I saw him at old Baltomore last week.
Best, Austin
|
Richard Flanders
PGCA Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 25th, 2006 06:15 am |
|
| We have likely seen each other in the galley in McMurdo. I started the West Antarctic program camps at UPB in '83, was at Palmer in '84, then back at UPB and Crary Ice Rise in '85. Dave Waldrip, your camp manager at Beardmore in '85 was a good friend tho we have lost touch. I really wanted that camp that year but he got it. I haven't gone down since running Siple Dome in '96 and don't even want to. We saw the best days of the program, I assure you.
|
Austin Hogan
PGCA Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1600 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 25th, 2006 08:56 pm |
|
I needed to get into Beardmore quite early that season, before the arrival of the geologists that would spend the summer there. He let me go in with his camp opening party on the condition I would double as camp plumber. We got in just as the flying weather went sour, and our second supply flight turned back. We had some really wild winds for several days; they were what I was there for, as we had thought the black streaks we saw in satellite photos were "warm" wind curents.
We wound up consolidating back into one Jamesway and pooling the remaining fuel from the last season to heat it; old VX6 came through and made a no horizon landing with a couple of days to spare.
Best, Austin
|
Richard Flanders
PGCA Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 25th, 2006 09:45 pm |
|
| I remember that. We listened in from UPB. Those are the trips that make Antarctica fun. It's more like a teenage country club these days.
|
Jim Williams
BBS Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 27th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 554 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 27th, 2006 02:53 am |
|
Richard and Bill - no super glue, and no JB Weld (but I have heard of that one before, believe it or not !). The method we used is not "secret". The muzzleloader shotgun guys routinely weld holes in barrels since they are much more common in their guns, being a good 50 or 75 years older than ours. This gun had pristine bores with no visible pits (or holes). The hole only showed itself when we refinished the damascus pattern. During the boiling process, fluid leaked in under the rib and showed itself leaking into the left bore, 7 inches from the breech at the 3-O'clock position. We pulled the ribs expecting to find severe rusting and pitting between the barrels (like swiss cheese). Instead, we were amazed to find a perfectly clean set of barrels between the ribs. The hole was visible between the barrels at the location of the forend lug (also removed). After a very careful cleaning, the hole was found to be the size of a pinpoint on the inside of the barrel, and slightly larger (pinhead?) on the outside. I believe it has been there since day one of this barrels life, and probably would never have caused a problem, but the only way to know that the barrels weren't swiss cheese between the ribs was to take a look. I believe it may have been due to one of those mythical "damascus inclusions" we hear so much about. Since we had it apart anyway, we welded the tiny hole with 4130 filler rod, blending it in over a larger area, using a barrel dent remover inside the bore expanded to a slip fit to prevent bore distortion during the weld. When done, the repaired area was carefully measured inside, outside, and wall thickness.
The bores on this gun measured exactly .735 before the repair. After the repair, a .735 reamer was used to clean up the bore in the repaired area. This only took a few twists to do. The wall thickness after the repair was much thicker over the area with the hole due to the filler material, but we found that the original barrel material surrounding the built-up area had thinned somewhat (down to .064 thickness). This is about .010 thinner than the wall just fore and aft of the repair, but coincidently is still the exact same thickness as the barrel wall at the same breech distance at the 9-O-clock position. (In other words, it is no thinner than the corresponding wall on the opposite side of the bore, which was obviously thinned more during the original striking process since it wasn't protected by the ribs like the area where the hole was).
Since there are no ribs on the barrels, I temporarily stabilized them with hose clamps at the muzzles for proofing (the monobloc still being intact). I put 2 rounds of a Kent load @ 8200 psi published, then for the acid test, a Super-X heavy game load at 3-3/4 Dram, 1-1/4 oz. Then 2 more of the Kent loads. Careful measuring of all dimensions after each shot showed no changes during the test firing. Now we are ready to re-lay the ribs. After that, the whole set will have to be refinished again (I JUST did that, didn't I?).
If it sounds risky, I'd have to answer Yes, somewhat. That is why I was a little reluctant to discuss it to begin with, but what-the-heck, this is a forum for discussion of options and ideas. I don't condone or recommend this practice to anyone, but by being as analytical as possible, believe we have kept the risks manageable. This is not brave new ground, as the muzzleloading community is familiar with the practice. It will never see another load over 7000 psi, with the vast majority considerably lower than that.
OK, I've let the cat out of the bag and identified myself as among the "crazies". I'm waiting for the comments...I just hated to see an otherwise beautiful and original set of damascus barrels go to the scrap heap. Sub-gauge tubes were always an option (still are), but I really didn't want a 9 lb. 20 ga. However, I have developed a certain fondness for my left hand as well as my eyesight. I'll keep you posted.
Jim
|
Richard Flanders
PGCA Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 27th, 2006 03:10 am |
|
| I love it and think you did 'good' by the gun and yourself. I doubt you'll ever have a problem with the barrels. I'm sure you're familiar with Sherman Bells damascus and fluid steel destructive testing in DGJ that seemed to show that, while it may not always be the case, damascus barrels can be far stronger than we have been told all our shooting lives. I have a very nice 1919 vintage Ithaca S/S twist gun that I am going to resurrect with 4300psi 24gr loads after first mildly proofing it as you did. And about that dent remover, I need one. What do you recommend I get?
|
Jim Williams
BBS Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 27th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 554 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 27th, 2006 05:11 am |
|
Richard,
This particular one is home-made. It involves a long piece of threaded rod with a T-handle welded on one end. A short (2 in. or so) piece of steel tubing slightly smaller than the bore is cut, then four longitudinal quartering cuts are made from one end to about a half inch from the other end. The ends of these cuts are then stop-drilled to prevent the piece from splitting when it is expanded. A nut of the proper thread size is then welded over the un-cut end. (This piece looks rather like a hole saw with four longitudinal cuts in it). The final piece is a tapered round wedge threaded and welded to the end of the long threaded rod.
In practice, the piece that looks like a hole saw with 4 slits will expand when the T-handle is turned and it is forced forward over the tapered round wedge. You measure the distance to the dent on the outside of the barrel, then mark the depth on the threaded rod. The expanding piece is screwed forward onto the wedge until it is a friction-fit inside the bore (this will keep it from turning when the rod is turned). Then you advance the rod into the bore to the marked depth and slowly turn the T-handle until resistance is felt. Get the little brass hammer and lightly tap around the dent while continuing to apply light turning pressure on the T-handle. As you tap you can feel the T-handle slowly turn with ease as the dent is raised by the tapping. The real trick is to not over-do it. There are commercially-available hydraulic dent raisers available from Brownell's, but they are on the expensive side and only apply pressure in a small area. They would not have been suitable for the welding operation since they don't apply pressure evenly around the bore. I believe someone makes a commercial unit similar to our home-made one, but I don't know who it is.
Jim
|
Richard Flanders
PGCA Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 27th, 2006 06:04 am |
|
| Thanks. I can picture what you mean exactly and have a small lathe that I can make that up with quite easily. I too like the idea of equal pressure all around the bore at the treated spot. I will likely try using a leather hammer that has worked well on barrels for me in the past; it leaves no scars at all as long as there are no steel shavings embedded in the hammer face. I like it a lot. A wooden hammer would also likely work well. I'll get some 4130 chrome moly tubing from an aircraft supply to make the expander tube; it's very hard and tough. You see any problem with using good hard steel for that part?
|
Tom Leshinsky
PGCA Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 27th, 2006 05:22 pm |
|
| ENCO has a expanding mandrel similar to this (except you push the plug into the mandrel) in their latest flier for around $25. Pg5 at USE-ENCO.COM
|
Mike Poindexter
PGCA Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 7th, 2006 10:04 pm |
|
Last edited on Fri Jun 2nd, 2006 02:00 am by Mike Poindexter
|
Richard Flanders
PGCA Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 13th, 2006 04:29 am |
|
| Thanks. Those look very nice. They have them under machine tools on their website. All you'd have to do is figure a way to expand the mandrel when it was down the barrel a ways. They look like they would do the trick very well. I will likely try one.
|
Richard Flanders
PGCA Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 24th, 2006 12:26 am |
|
| This is for Austin from page 1. I survived food poisoning in Russia and am back home in Fairbanks. Here are the dimensions and some pics of my loose Parker. I measured the lug in 3 places with a Starrett micrometer and then the lug and the table slot? with a good dial caliper. First, the lug is not a constant thickness, but tapers from the table to the bottom. Gun is S/N 200130; 1-1/2frame, 30"(a correction from first post), M/F choked, barrels 3#13oz. Dbl ivory beads. DT, PG, DHBP. Barrels, wood, and receiver numbered the same. Micrometer: front/hook end:.3950-.3921 middle:.3931 back:.3944-.3926, all in inches. Caliper: front:.3966-.3926, back:.3937-.3923. Table slot: front: .3981, back: .3965. The gun will close with a .0025" feeler gauge against the face, but not on a .0030". If you close the gun and hold it up and look at the side, you can see just a touch of light coming through the face/breech junction near the table. The dolls head seems a bad fit to me, see image. Conclusions: the lug is tapered by .0018"-.0019". Lug clearance in the frame is .0028-.0042 in the back and .0015-.0055 in the front(caliper). I trust the micrometer reading on the lug thickness but couldn't measure the slot with it. The question is: Has the gun been rebarreled or is it original? Now for some pictures. Attached Image (viewed 183 times):
 Last edited on Mon Apr 24th, 2006 01:08 am by Richard Flanders
|
Dean Romig
PGCA Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 7th, 2005 |
| Location: | Andover, Ma |
| Posts: | 4887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 24th, 2006 02:54 am |
|
The fit of the "doll's head" in it's well would seem to suggest the doll's head extension, at least, may not be original IMHO.
Dean
|
Richard Flanders
PGCA Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 24th, 2006 05:52 am |
|
| It seemed that way to me when I bought it. I'd be curious if anyone else has seen that bad a fit on an all-original gun. Last edited on Mon Apr 24th, 2006 05:54 am by Richard Flanders
|
Current time is 07:04 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
