![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,630
|
![]()
Hi Pukka.
LOL!!! Yes, I'm going to be sooooo curious. ![]() Hi David. There are other muzzle loading gun shooters and collectors that are also curious to see the pics. I want to try to understand their theory of ballistics by analyzing the design of the barrel/breech interior. In the YouTube video "Mughal Matchlock" they seem to think the lead ball was seated just FORWARD of the powder chamber instead of being seated ON TOP of the powder. When I run a metal rod down the barrel, and press to one side, there seems to be a ridge just before the swell at the breech begins. Very strange. Not having the lead ball seated directly on top of the powder would at minimum reduce velocity and could also be considered a bore obstruction. Hmmmm. Rick. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
|
![]()
Rick,
If in India they received the first matchlocks when meal type powder was in use, then a stop of some kind between powder and projectile was important, as mealed powder won't ignite if compressed. (Meal powder was finely ground sulphur charcoal and saltpetre and would settle out in transport so had to be re-mixed.) It would appear that in India, this powder chamber in one form or another became standard, even when it wasn't required anymore when corned powder came into use. There shouldn't be a gap really between powder and ball, so they likely had it measured pretty close so as to not create problems. (For instance, just enough powder to fill the chamber, and a tad more, so the ball sat on it, (or the wad) without unduly compressing it. Richard. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,630
|
![]() Quote:
Your mealed powder analysis makes perfect sense. I have actually seen some of this powder. It's almost the consistency of cake flour. But I did not know of it's ignition requirements. Thank you very much. I learn something new on this Forum all the time. The theory for the powder chamber design becomes more clear. Hopefully, between the gunsmith and myself, we will be able to figure out a way to safely shoot the barrel without the use of a new steel liner. Which in this case, would be expensive to make with a large taper for the breech section, but the bore being the same diameter the whole length. Which brings up another question LOL. I wonder how they kept the breech area clean after firing? Running a cleaning patch down the bore from the muzzle end would likely loose the patch in the breech area. Would it not? Rick. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
|
![]()
Rick,
For cleaning, water and likely a wool mop attached to a rod would work. Wool would compress to enter the chamber, and fluff out again to fill it. When dry, an oiled wool mop would work to prevent rust. As you say, patches would be asking for trouble! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,630
|
![]() Quote:
Yes, similar to a shotgun cleaning mop. Assuming the mop would expand enough. I'll test hat out once the breech is open. Rick. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
|
![]()
You can make your own wool mop with raw wool and as big and fuzzy as needs be, Rick.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,630
|
![]()
Yes, that's a good idea. Thanks.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|