Indian Torador Barrel Investigation

[rickystl]

SOME MORE PICS..........

[rickystl]

HERE ARE PICS OF THE BREECH END WITH THE DIRT CLEANED OFF.
It looks like a small plug inside a larger one??? Now I really have no idea till I open up the breech. LOL
Rick.

[Pukka Bundook]

I can imagine you peering in there like Carter into King Tut's tomb!

Spiders, smurfs, who knows!?
Very hard to generalize on these, as some were made with smaller powder chambers, and some larger powder chambers.
I had an old Enfield musket, and it's breech was larger than bore, but that was just Very bad pitting!

Look forward to seeing what you find.

Richard.

[David R]

Very much looking forward to further developments here.

[rickystl]

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.

[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.

[rickystl]

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.