Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 15th August 2015, 07:06 PM   #1
rickystl
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,630
Default

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.
rickystl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th August 2015, 04:02 AM   #2
Pukka Bundook
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
Default

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.
Pukka Bundook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th August 2015, 05:58 PM   #3
rickystl
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook
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.
Hi Richard.
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.
rickystl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th August 2015, 06:27 PM   #4
Pukka Bundook
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
Default

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!
Pukka Bundook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th August 2015, 06:32 PM   #5
rickystl
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook
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!
Hi Richard.
Yes, similar to a shotgun cleaning mop. Assuming the mop would expand enough. I'll test hat out once the breech is open.
Rick.
rickystl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th August 2015, 06:56 PM   #6
Pukka Bundook
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
Default

You can make your own wool mop with raw wool and as big and fuzzy as needs be, Rick.
Pukka Bundook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th August 2015, 07:01 PM   #7
rickystl
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,630
Default

Yes, that's a good idea. Thanks.
rickystl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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 +1. The time now is 06:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.