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 21st May 2016, 09:29 PM   #1
rickystl
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,623
Default

Hi Richard.
I agree with all your assessments and comments above. As you mention, the restriction in the bore was meant to keep the ball from compressing against the powder. While the breech designs do seem to vary, they all seem designed to handle heavy charges of black powder. The barrel walls at the breech are very thick.
Thanks for posting pics of your Matchlock. Yes, that would be a tough job with the bore not having a removeable breech plug. But the gun definately looks restorable. There appears to be a missing piece of wood behind the breech area of the stock. From the photos, it doesn't look broke. Just missing. Originally, maybe a different colored piece of wood, maybe with a horn cap ? Or maybe one piece of elaphant ivory somebody removed But I don't notice any holes in the bottom section where nails or pins might have been (?). Anyway, be careful with that forearm. Sounds like it might be delicate.
Rick.
rickystl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2016, 03:39 PM   #2
Pukka Bundook
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
Default

Rick,

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, the fore-end is like paper it's so thin!

I too wondered about the missing block behind the breech, as there are no holes where pins or nails held it in place, and no signs of glue either!
Looking at the sideplate, I can't see where a match -holder was located, so think it may have had a hole in the rear end of the missing block.

Any ideas of age on this?
Also usage?
I Think possibly made for sporting use, as it is a bit thin and delicate for warfare. (Think!)
I do wish these were easier to date, but looking at it overall, and the shape of the (very thin) sideplates, I Think late 18th C.
Again just think and would appreciate your thoughts.

It seems a book could be written about these. A book with actual facts that is, And dates for specific changes over the centuries.
Yes, I know it may never happen, and one has to look at lots of photos to try and figure out the finer details which often vary over the sub-continent.

I have another 2 recent purchases, and these are both still in the UK.
Will attach photos in separate threads.

Best,
Richard.
Pukka Bundook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2016, 04:36 PM   #3
rickystl
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,623
Default

Hi Richard.
Been traveling the last couple weeks.
Before I forget, I want to congratulate you on this barrel still having it's original pan cover. They are usually missing. Assuming the pans that were made with a cover. As we know, some were not.
Date: Well, my guess would not be any better than your's. LOL. These guns are so difficult to try and date. The "general" overall design of the stocks and barrels seem to remain the same for some 300+ years. The gun could have been made in 1700 or 1800 LOL. I don't even know which style/changes, etc. would be considered early versus later.
As you mention, a book could probably be written about the history/design, etc.about these guns. But the book would be seriously expensive since you and I might be the only customers. LOL
In the book Indian and Oriental Armour there is a few pages that do give some interesting details of how the barrels were made. I had to re-read it 3-4 times to get an understanding. LOL. But no discussion of interior bore/breech design. And, as you mentioned, without a removeable breech plug, it makes study of the breech design that much more difficult.
I have noticed only two variations of breech plug design. One, as used on my barrel, is an iron plug, smaller diameter than the breech, forge welded in place, with the rear sight mounted directly on top of the breech. The other style, utilizes a flat plate, slightly larger diameter than the breech, with the rear sight cut into the top of the plate. And I assume also forge welded in place.

Sometime in June, my barrelsmith will be working on my barrel. In the process, he will be drilling out the hole I already made larger till it meets the barrel walls. Hopefully, this will allow for some better photos of the breech end, and maybe the restrcted area, before installing a new threaded breech plug (and liner if necessary). So maybe we will get some more information on breech design.

Again, thanks for your discussion on this subject.
Rick
rickystl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2016, 04:32 AM   #4
Pukka Bundook
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
Default

And, Thank You rick for your thoughts and comments on both these threads.
We appear in a minority when it comes to interest in the Torador.

I have this barrel pretty well smoothed out now, and it Just takes a .530" ball without a patch.
Trouble is, that breech still want to hold about 200 grains of powder, so would need to use loose wadding that could ram into the narrower chamber to take up some of the space!

Dating is difficult. (Dating Toradors I mean!)
The Mughal art-work depicting Dara Shikoh, , Shah Jajan & even Akbar all show matchlocks very similar to what we see today.
A book Does need to be written, but who knows the answers to write the book?

I do look forward to hearing of progress with your barrel!
Keep me posted won't you?!

Richard.
Pukka Bundook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2016, 02:40 PM   #5
rickystl
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,623
Default

Hi Richard.

If a .530 ball will "just" fit the muzzle without a patch, it sounds like the nominal bore size is about .540 (Make sure there is no swell at the muzzle end to ease loading. (But I've never seen Torador barrels with a swell in the bore at the muzzle end). Since it's a smooth bore you will need a ball about 2-3 calibers smaller than the nominal bore size, as you probably know. They do make ready cast balls in both .520 and .526. You could probably use the .520 with a .010 patch. (They use to make a thin .005 patch, but no longer do to my knowledge). Another option: .540 caliber is equal to 20 guage. They make pre-lubed wads and over-shot cards for this size for use in loading ML shotguns. But many smooth bore shooters prefer to load their single ball barrels in this manner versus a lubed patch.
POWDER VOLUMN: I too would not shoot the barrel with 200 grain loads
But here's a thought that just occured to me last night. Do you think you could load say 60-85 grains of FFG powder - and that volumn meet the vent hole ? If so, you could fill the rest of the chamber with Corn Meal, all the way up to the restricted area. Then just load the patched ball like any other muzzle loader. Sounds like a lot of corn meal. But I think that would be better than all the loose wadding. What do you think ?

But I'm still lost on how to properly clean the breech area after firing.

MY BARREL: If it wasn't for the breech cleaning issue, I could simply have the restriced area drilled out, the bore burnished smooth again, and a threaded breech plug installed. And shoot it via the corn meal method per above. Which I may have to do anyway if the barrelsmith can't make a one-piece liner to accomodate both the barrel a larger breech area. But he has been able to fix barrels that I otherwise would not believe he could do.

Rick
rickystl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2016, 03:32 PM   #6
Pukka Bundook
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 803
Default

Rick,

I somehow had a senior moment! The ball is a .570" I don't know what made me think .530"....
Still, it makes no odds in the long run.
The only problem with cornmeal as a filler, is that it can cause extra pressure in a constricted area. That is why we don't use it in the Martini-Henry, as it rams up solid in the neck.

Seeing as this barrel isn't so much constricted at the chamber, but more reduced in bore for the chamber, the cornmeal might do very well though. (the slight constriction there was, I reamed /fine -bored out, to simplify it! )
With this constriction removed, I can now tell that the chamber does not enlarge to bore diameter as I figured previously, so in essence a slight tapering towards the breech if anything.

We have been working on loads for an International musket competition we are just starting, to be run in conjunction with our annual "Victorian Riflemen Shoot" here on the farm on 25th & 26th June.
Most of us have had good luck with a ball using thick wads of felt, and plenty of lube, and no patch..
At 50 metres, they seem like they will group in the black allright off-hand, so that will be something to try.


Re. patches;
I used to wander around thrift /fabric shops with a micrometer in my pocket, seeking out the thickness of good dense linen I needed!! I have a good selection still. :-)

The touch-hole on this barrel is right at the breech face, so any small amount of powder could be used, as long as wadding can be rammed down into the narrower breech area. (or cornmeal)
To all intents & purposes, this barrel is (now) simply a .57" or so bore, then a narrower breech area, with parralell (nearly!) sides.
For cleaning;

a wool mop or brush on the rod would work for both our barrels, as being flexible they should pass through a constriction in your case, or into the narrower chamber in my case, without too much trouble.

Let me know how you get on with your barrel!

Richard.

Last edited by Pukka Bundook; 30th May 2016 at 03:42 PM.
Pukka Bundook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2016, 05:07 PM   #7
rickystl
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO area.
Posts: 1,623
Default

Hi Richard.

That's OK. I get senior moments all the time. LOL
Here in the States there is a supplier that has ready made cast round balls in .550 caliber. But there is also a fellow in the U.K. that custom makes moulds in ANY caliber. But you probably know that.
I can definately see not using corn meal in BP Cartridge guns. As you say, it won't compress. Especially in a bottle neck cartridge like the Martini. I think today they use something else for filler, but not sure what it is.

OK. That is an interesting result you found out about your bore after removing the restriced area where the ball would have originally been forced to sit. I think that once this constriced area is removed, it's much simpler to configure how we go about loading, shooting, and cleaning.
And, I may be overly concerned about cleaning the larger breech area. Yes, between a larger diameter brush and some wool felt, I can figure out something.

I was thinking, you and I may be the first ones to attempt to put these Torador barrels in firing condition. LOL And the bore/breech area study along the way. It will be interesting to see what conclusions we end up with.

Normally, I would not shoot a barrel without a THREADED breech plug. But after drilling out the breech face of my barrel, I can see that the forge welding of the plug appears very sturdy. That coupled with the extreme barrel wall thickness, I can't see why the barrel would not hold up to normal charges of black powder.
In the case of my barrel, there is already a hole in the breech face. So the threaded plug is my only option there. Drilling out the constriced area to nominal bore size all the way through the breech face, burnishing the bore and breech area, and installing the threaded plug may be all I need. And may be my only option if he can't make a liner whose O.D. will accomodate both the bore and larger breech areas. But he says he can taper or flare a liner the same as making a new barrel, as long as he knows the measurements. If he can, I will probably go this route since he is already going to this much trouble. LOL I'll keep you posted what we decide to do.
Rick
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 06:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.