Printable View
All the black powder rifles, muzzle loading, used pins and barrel wedges to keep the barrel attached. I am curious if you guys think that the accuracy of the early rifles like the American Kentucky, the Germanic jaeger, and the British rifles actually could have been improved by free floating?
A very interesting question, and I admit to not really having a clue!
When I look at my Hessian Jaeger, the barrel is so thick for its length (i.e. extremely rigid) and the wood of the forestock is so thin, that there is no doubt that the wood is hanging on the barrel with no forcing affect. Probably, removing the forend would make no noticeable difference to the accuracy, but I'm not going to carve it up for the sake of an experiment!
However, looking at the American long rifles, the barrels are both longer and thinner, making them more "whippy", so the forestock may well have a complex effect on the barrel movement, such as dampening out certain vibrations and, of course, affecting the aim if the wood is warped.
In the case of muskets, the barrel is basically a tube of very large diameter, so it will also be very rigid. And the smooth-bore accuracy is so limited that the effect of wood/no wood will probably be undectable. Shotguns usually had a rather short forestock and basically a musket is like a shotgun firing a single piece of shot!
In short, the answer is yes/no/maybe!
I think they likely have extreme rigidity. That's why the later rifles copied the octagon barrel and heavy profile. Some cases the sights too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick
the question came to my mind a while ago when I saw an old auction photo of a Japanese arisaka that had been given a traditional Japanese stock from an old Tanegashima. barrel was being held in with two barrel pins, and it was used by that family to shoot monkey.
the m1 carbine is basically using the typical lyman great plains method of action attachment, a hooked breach where the receiver keys into the metal stock tab, and a barrel band that acts as the front barrel wedge.
that was used for night time sniping roles with really expensive IR scope setups.
I worked with a guy who was trained on and issued a night scope carbine during the Korean war. He had to go out on every night patrol. The reason the carbine was chosen was because of the weight of the scope and huge battery backpack that he had to carry with it. If attached to a Garand or even a 1903 one man would barely have been able to shoulder it. Also it was felt the recoil from a 30-06 round most likely would have damaged it. The visible range was also limited so it couldn't have taken advantage of the 30-06's ballistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketshaver
A very good observation. In the .30M1 carbine literature you will read that the amount of "hook" - i.e. the force required to pull the barrel down into the barrel channel - most certainly affects the accuracy. No force - then the barrel is loose in the recoil plate. Too much force - then the barrel will be bent when the barrel band is tightened up. Setting and (if necessary) peening the recoil plate to achieve just the right amount of force is part of the art of carbine tuning.Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketshaver
"...improved by free floating..." Floating a barrel on a modern hunting rifle guarantees absolutely nothing. Wouldn't on a BP rifle either.
The accuracy of a BP rifle would have been improved by using better bullets than a round ball of soft lead. Same as it did when rifled muskets were used. The Minié ball expended and sealed the bore better.
Military BP rifles had full length stocks to protect the thing when bayonet fighting. Same as any military bolt action used later. Mind you, a lot of it had to do with "That's how we've always done it."
An M3 complete with battery and power supply weighs 21.3 pounds with an effective range of 100 to 125 yards. A BAR LMG weighs 21 pounds.
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunray
You can't be serious or should I say Sober ?
Did you read the OP's Topic ?
Do you know you can EDIT your Reply.
Sunray, this one nearly ranks right up there with some of your past comments like:
"The M1 Rifle has NO Recoil."
"The o-give on any bullet is irrelevant." " The only part of a bullet that matters is the base."
I have plenty more but they cross in to a Danger Area containing erroneous mis-information on reloading.
I wish we could tag any post by you with a 'At your own risk' disclaimer.
I'm of the camp in thinking free floating ML barrels would not be of any primary benefit for the reason of the two different types of powder.
Smokeless powder a propellant burning slower than black powder having more time to create resonance in the barrel that is designed to be light and quick handling in modern arms.
Black powder, an explosive reaching highest pressure while still contained in a generally heavier barrel due to period construction practices losing pressure at a more rapid rate.
My experience has been a well patched round ball with the right load chain developed providing the most accuracy at short to moderate ranges vs a conical or hollow based bullet providing flatter trajectory at longer distances and retained energy while hunting game. A slight decrease in accuracy but with a better ballistic advantage.
Doco,Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunray
I didn't mean to get this Off Topic..
I just couldn't make sense of the statement above me...... involving 'Modern Hunting Rifles'.
I'll stay out of this.
I believe it would be best.
In my experience black powder is more of a stabilization of a ball or slug with slow burning powder over a long barrel. Which when spinning gives it more accuracy in theory. Were with smokeless powder its a fast burn an the whip of the bullet down the barrel needs more control. If the barrel is attached to the wood stock it sorta throws off the accuracy. This is my own opinion. I have seen some accurate muzzle loaders shoot groups that center fire rifles only can dream of.
well dreyse realized/discovered that the charge of black powder combusted back to front, and used the ENTIRE barrel as a combustion chamber. Typically wasting powder by tossing it to burn outside of the barrel. LOTS of muzzle loaders have seen that. Its why I don't use 3 pyrodex pellets, last one loaded ALWAYS burns outside the barrel and acts like a tracer. First time that happened it scared the crap out of me.
Although more powerful then most front loading rifles of the period, dreyse and chassepot were more powerful and seemed to have better accuracy. They did use the same bullet technology that every one else was adopting to muzzleloaders.
I guess a better test example would be what would be more enherently accurate, a P53 enfield rifle muzzleloader versus an identical P53 that was turned into a snider
It was tested at the time. I don't know where the results are, but have the impression that the difference wasn't great. I may be wrong, have to get searching....Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketshaver
One of the requirements set out in the original competition (for a system to convert the P53) was that accuracy would be as good as the P53. How good was that? During the testing a benchmark average Figure of Merit for several P53's was 1.19 feet at 500 yards. For any not familiar with it, the FOM of a "group" is the average deviation of all shots from the calculated MPI. With on the fly ammunition changes (by Boxer) during the testing the Snider was just able to meet the requirement. I have data from a comparison test between Snider and Martini from several years later that has the Snider managing a 1.0 ft FOM at 500 yards, only fractionally behind the Martini. So, the answer is that conversion of the P53 family of rifles to breechloaders left accuracy unchanged. Modern Snider shooters seem to have improved short range accuracy of the Snider by using larger diameter bullets that are "forced" onto the rifling. The Boxer Snider ammunition used a bullet that, while larger in diameter than the P53 service bullet, still required expansion of the bullet upon firing to take the rifling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick
Ridolpho