Muzzleloading semi-auto/full auto concepts.

[Bill Akins]

Pvt Long wrote:
the thing with Bp guns is that the loading system is so delicate with the percussion caps, flintlocks and maynard tape along with the fouling that will gunk up the gun.

Remember, black powder substitutes are available that are tons less fouling than standard black powder and you can buy the substitutes that do not smoke too. They operate like standard black powder, but you have the option to choose the ones that do not produce smoke and they are less fouling than standard black powder. I don't see percussion caps being more delicate than a modern primer. I do agree that flintlocks and maynard tape primers may not be the best platforms for rapid fire muzzleloading weapons.

Also, thanks to another member here they clued me to West Lake Engineering who makes a muzzleloading cylinder that loads projectiles just like a standard muzzleloading cylinder, but....it uses smokeless NITRO powder instead of gunk inducing black powder. It also uses shotgun primers instead of percussion caps to set off the charge.

Now would those modern shotgun primers make ATF say it didn't use a "primitive ignition system" wherein they would classify it as a FIREARM instead of a muzzleloader?.....Unknown. It's still a muzzleloader.....just using nitro smokeless powder instead of black powder and shotgun primers.

Go to this link for West Lake Engineering and read the description just above the 2nd picture, then look at the 2nd picture showing the cylinder that you load the ball into the front, and it has a hole in the back of the cylinder that you load a shotgun primer into, then you put the separate back section onto the back of the cylinder that has the firing pins for the shotgun primers on the back of the cylinder. But it is NOT a typical conversion cylinder since it does not use cartridges. It just allows you to use shotgun primers in place of standard percussion caps and smokeless NITRO powder that usually is a big no no for pressure in a standard black powder cylinder. These cylinders are made to take the smokeless nitro pressures. But they are still muzzleloading cylinders and not cartridge cylinders. Ingenious concept and they are in production.

http://www.westlakeengineering.com/4640/4694.html

Pvt Long wrote:
Has any one thought about weapons that are converted to take cartridges? that would make the loading process so much easier. like getting a 1858 revolving rifle with converted cylinder, or trying a gun with the zigzag converted to cartridges? (I would personally love to see a converted le mat and a walker but thatss just me

The problem with that is if anyone manufactured or made even for their own use, a cartridge gun, that gun then becomes A FIREARM, under the National Firearms Act (N.F.A.) and subject to all the federal and state laws regarding FIREARMS. Just like the 1872 open top CARTRIDGE revolvers are FIREARMS and cannot be mailed directly to you, but must be mailed through an FFL. Just like a muzzleloading revolver that has a conversion cartridge cylinder installed in it cannot be mailed to you but must go through an FFL. You must mail the conversion cartridge cylinder separately from the muzzleloading revolver for it to be legal. MUZZLELOADERS are Federally unregulated and most except for a handful of states do not regulate muzzleloaders either.

You can certainly legally make your own FIREARM for your own use, and you can legally make a semi-auto firearm for your own use. If you manufacture a FIREARM for public sale, you are regulated. Unlike manufacturing a muzzleloader for public use wherein you are not regulated. But you cannot legally make or manufacture a full auto firearm or make one even for your own use, unless you are a Special Occupational Taxpayer licensee (SOT) and even then you can only have the full auto registered to you and only as long as you maintain your expensive SOT license (wherein you first have to have an FFL license before you can even get an SOT license)....or you can as an SOT only transfer it to another SOT licensee. This is because since 1986 no new full auto firearms can be made to sell to the general public and the public can only buy and register what full auto firearms are already in existence in the U.S.

A cartridge revolver has already been made to use a zig zag cylinder. The Webley Fosbery and I believe the more modern Mateba revolver also uses the same system.

But like yourself, I'd also like to see a muzzleloading (non cartridge) semi-auto 1858 Remy carbine and a Walker or Le Mat in semi-auto too! Keep the ideas coming.


.

 

[OutlawJoseyWales]

Bill,
I've enjoyed the read, fine research.

Sometime within the last year or so, I saw a Homemade "gatling gun-ish thing" for sale on Gunbroker. I didn't pay attention to it, but now wish I would've. Looked like a gatling.
The only thing I remember is that they called the ammo for use in it-small percussion tubes. At least I think so. Have you seen this?

OJW

 

[Bill Akins]

Thanks Josey.

No sorry, I didn't see that particular Gatling on gunbroker.


.

 

[arcticap]

The harmonica magazines live on for use in 5-shot semi-auto rapid fire air pistols that are made by several European companies.
Here's a photo that shows a Feinwerkbau CO2 model with harmonica magazines:

http://www.strellis.com/images/airrifle/c55_all.jpg

 

[Bill Akins]

Arcticap, do you have any knowledge of how they advance the harmonica block in those semi-auto air guns? I'd be interested in learning what method they use to do that to see if it could transfer over to muzzleloaders.


.

 

[arcticap]

The FWB models have undergone changes over the years as they introduced new improved models. There's a page with schematics and manuals for the rapid fire models in their order of introduction C5, C55, C55 (after serial #5000), C55P, and the latest C58.

http://www.feinwerkbau.de/ceasy/modules/cms/main.php5?cPageId=231

P58: http://www.feinwerkbau.de/ceasy/modules/core/resources/main.php5?id=565-0

C55P: http://www.feinwerkbau.de/ceasy/modules/core/resources/main.php5?id=578-0

C55 Post #5000: http://www.feinwerkbau.de/ceasy/modules/core/resources/main.php5?id=576-0

C55: http://www.feinwerkbau.de/ceasy/modules/core/resources/main.php5?id=577-0

C5: http://www.feinwerkbau.de/ceasy/modules/core/resources/main.php5?id=577-0

Other companies that make very similar models include Walther and Styer.

 

[Bill Akins]

Thanks for the links Arcticap. I read all the links except for the first one which wouldn't open. There are exploded schematics, but nothing in the way of explanation of how the harmonica bar advances. But thanks for your effort and trying anyway, appreciate it.



.

 

[Jo6pak]

Thanks for the comments and the critizism, Bill. I'll try to address some of the critiques, and explain my train of thought a bit better

Visualize the full weight of a vertical or angle fed 50 to 100 chamber harmonica block being completely just supported by the lug which engages the zig zag slots. Also visualize the vertically or angle fed harmonica block hitting the ground before it was supposed to. Not an optimum situation.

I hadn't considered the weight issue, good point. I guess I was thinking more or a 15-30 round harmonica block, which in my simple estimation (using .50cal. as a basis) would be ~12-24" long. But weight, I imagine could still be a factor.

My main reason for making the harmonica block vertical is to align it better with the operating system but, after re-thinking it, this adaption is not really neccesary

By the way, one of the German semi-automatic rifles from WW2 used the same (many decades done before by Browning), gas trapping cup on the end of the barrel to actuate the action. If memory serves me, I think it was the Walther rifle, but can't precisely remember the name for sure.

Walther Gew. 41(W)
"Military Small Arms of the 20th Century" by Ian Hogg
...The Walther Gew.41 was adopted, a gas-operated rifle using the rather crude Bang system in which gas was defelected by a muzzle cap to turn back and strike as annular piston around the barrel and so move the piston rod...

Good idea Jo. So instead of using blowback forces to blow the muzzleloading harmonica block (or the cylinder in a revolving handgun) rearward, causing the lug to travel in the zig zag slots, you suggest instead using a gas operated lever to actuate that...
...Also if we used gas operation, the zig zag slots on the harmonica block would be unnecessary since the harmonica block wouldn't have to blowback to advance. The gas system could actuate an internal receiver gear which advanced the harmonica block rack gear without the harmonica block having to move rearward at all. Which would be great.

Yes, that would be much simpler. I tend to get a little exotic with my ideas sometime. (Blame my dyslexia) I envisioned all the operating elements to be externally mounted on top of the receiver. Now the more I think of it, that is an emmensely complicated and fragile way find function

Kind of like a rack and pinion gear system on a car. No zig zag slots or harmonica block rearward movement necessary to advance to the next chamber. All done by a gas piston or direct gas impingement against an internal gear that engages the gear rack on the bottom or top of the harmonica block.

Now, I'm seeing it.
In my idea the harmonica block would not recoil itself, it would be the operating rods movement along the zig-zag in the harmonica block that would initiate the axial movement. Kinda the opposite of the Webley-Fosberg action. But again, I see this is overly complicating the system.

Hmmm, I'm deviating a bit from your original idea of a piston actuating the zig zag slots, but your description is causing me to get some good and even better ideas here than I had before Jo. Thanks!

No problem iith a little deviation. As with any mechanical design project it's all about evolution of the idea. Invention is less about finding out what works, and more about eliminating all the things that don't work.

I can visualize what you are describing about the chambers being bored at an angle in the straight rectangular harmonica block Jo, but could you please explain a bit more how that would aid the action? I'm having trouble tracking on visualizing what you are talking about there and what the purpose of those angle bored cylinders would be for.

Man, I wish I had visuals to help me explain myself
If you've followned my crazy concept this far you may also see where I trying to go with this. I thought that canting the harmonica block forward would assist in transfering the rearwad movement of the "op-rod" to lateral movement of the harmonica block.
Imagine a pump action shotgun. The action bars on the sides of the pump ride in the zig-zag cuts on the harmonica block, which moves it laterally as the action is cycled. By canting the harmonica block, it would reduce the torque on the block and maybe aid reliability.


As for ignition... So you are having the percussion caps already fixed to the harmonical block, and not a seperate part of the action?
I overlooked that part and again overthought it

 

[Bill Akins]

.

Thanks again Jo for your ideas. For my zig zag slots, blowback cylinder, semi-auto muzzleloading revolver concept mockup, I think the limited weight of the cylinder would allow it to have enough power for blowback forces to work fine with the zig zag slots system (ala Webley Fosbery) as in my mockup from earlier in this thread.......

But in reading some of your ideas Jo, I suddenly thought upon a rack and pinion gear system actuated by gas instead of a zig zag slot blowback, reciprocating harmonica block. I realized that a very large capacity harmonica block on a tripod mounted muzzleloader would be too heavy to rely on blowback to move the heavy harmonica block rearward and advance it via zig zag slots. That kind of system would be fine for a six shot revolver but not for one using a long, hi capacity, heavy harmonica block.

I realized that for THAT kind of weapon with a very high capacity and heavy harmonica block, a gas piston or even direct impingement of gas to actuate an internal gear that would interact with a gear rack running along the length of the harmonica block to advance it, (a rack and pinion system actuated by gas) would mean the hi capacity, heavy, harmonica block would not have to move rearward and would be a much simpler and better system to use.

I did some more mockup work in photoshop. It's very crude but gives the general idea of what I'm seeing. Nothing like a picture to eliminate a thousand words.

Roller conveyor supporting high capacity, one piece, muzzleloading, percussion cap fired, harmonica block. Gas operated operating an internal gear that interacts with a straight gear rack along the full length of the harmonica block. This is just a very crude rendition and could be changed to suit the design. The supports for the roller conveyor are extremely crude. But you can get the general idea. In reality they would be very ornate Victorian, "Jules Vernian", "Captain Nemo" type looking supports. Supporting the weight of the long hi capacity muzzleloading harmonica block as it feeds and also exits the receiver.

Although I think gas operation would be a good method for this type of muzzleloading hi capacity harmonica block concept, you could also use a completely manual hand cranked system instead of gas operation. As you no doubt realize, this would weigh a whole lot less than any Gatling and still have a high cyclic rate of fire but be completely a MUZZLELOADING antique weapon not regulated under the NFA, instead of a Gatling which if it uses a cartridge the Gatling is regulated under the NFA as a firearm, although a Gatling being manually crank fired is not classified nor regulated as a machine gun. With no gas tube on the barrel, that would enable a water jacket to be installed eliminating the necessity for multiple barrels for cooling......as in this mockup....

I appreciate the comments, thoughts and ideas. Keep them coming. Thanks.




.

 

[Bill Akins]

I've been thinking about something that didn't occur to me before.
In thinking about the cylinder recoiling in my below rendering I may have overlooked something....

I'm thinking that I may have overlooked the possibility of when the cylinder recoiled to the rear, that the projectiles in the chambers might come forward away from the powder charge. I'm not sure if the squeezing of them into the chamber where they cut a ring would be sufficient to keep them from being forced forward under the cylinder recoiling. I know the Webley Fosbery didn't have problems with its projectiles coming out of their cartridge cases, but then perhaps they had a heavy crimp on the cases, really cutting into the projectile precluding it from coming out. And a heavy crimp on a case digging into the projectile would hold that projectile better than just chamber wall tension would on a percussion revolver. Know what I mean?

One thing going in my favor with the spring loaded zig zag cylinder, is that for one....it is spring loaded which would slow down its recoil. Another thing is the zig zag slots would also slow down the cylinder's recoil just like the inclined lugs on a Steyr Hahn 1912 pistol's barrel's lugs slows down the recoil of that barrel, making the Steyr Hahn actually a delayed blowback pistol rather than a locked barrel like a Colt 1911. The Steyr Hahn also used a very powerful 9mm Steyr cartridge which was the most powerful 9mm cartridge used by any combatants in WW1. So that delayed blowback system worked pretty good for the powerful Steyr Hahn pistol (I used to have and shoot one). Which makes me think the spring behind the cylinder and the zig zag slots slowing the cylinder down as it recoiled might have a similar effect of delaying the blowback of the cylinder enough to preclude dislodging the projectiles in the other chambers.....maybe. It's all theory at this point.

Another thing I have been thinking about is going a completely different direction with the design without using a zig zag cylinder that recoils. But instead sticking with a standard cylinder and just increasing the hole diameter in the nipples among other things. Around 40 years ago without the knowledge I have today, on a few occasions I overloaded my first Confederate round barrel, brass frame, 1851 copy, with so much black powder, that there was just barely room for the ball in the chamber. On more than one occasion I found after firing that my hammer had recoiled to the half cock position. Luckily I had no damage to the revolver.

But those incidents of the force from the nipples half cocking the hammer way back then make me think. Perhaps I could drill out the hammer channel on a '58 Remy, so that I could weld a small cup on the hammer face that would allow a cap on an enlarged nipple hole to blow back and just for a fraction of an instant, some gas along with the force of the cap itself, would be caught in the hammer cup, causing the hammer to go to full cock and the bottom of the hammer cup would be inclined and the side of the cup cut out, so that the cap would be expelled to the right as the hammer was being cocked. Almost like a direct gas impingement system but slightly different.

If memory serves me, it was either Pederson or Garand who was experimenting on operating a semi-auto rifle using only primer setback, where the primer setback a very short distance into a cutout in the bolt face, but without actually coming all the way out of the cartridge But then I wonder if the cylinder pawl would take the stress of being operated that quickly/violently, without any spring behind the cylinder or zig zag slots to slow the operation down. It might also cause the cylinder to rotate faster than the bolt could drop to lock it, causing over rotation.

The advantages would be that I wouldn't have to do too much modification to the revolver and I wouldn't have to have a short cylinder so it could recoil rearward. The disadvantages would be the stress imparted to the cylinder pawl and what problems that might cause, along with possible over rotation of the cylinder due to the speed that it would be rotated that might be faster than the bolt could drop to lock it. See what I mean?

In both the recoiling cylinder (ala Webley Fosbery) system, and in the stationary cylinder with drilled out nipple holes with hammer cup system, the operation of either system would be dependent on a specific powder load to make sure that in the recoiling cylinder system, that the cylinder did not recoil with undue force. And in the stationary cylinder with drilled out nipple holes with hammer cup system, it would be the same thing to make sure that the hammer was not cocked with too much force. So a specific load would have to be found with experimentation that worked best for either system. Starting with a light load first and then working up. Of course the diameter of the drilled out nipple holes would be a factor too in that specific system.

Another thing I could do would be to get a "Forester tap-O-cap" punch system to make my own percussion caps. That way I could make the caps out of slightly thicker copper or even steel. Then maybe that would prevent the cap from splitting on detonation (as it frequently does) and instead of having to build a cup on the face of my hammer, the non split cap itself would act as a cup, which by being un-split, would hold the gas pressure better for the cap to blow to the rear and re-cock the hammer. That sure would be simpler than putting a cup on the hammer face. Then all I'd have to do would be to relieve some metal off the upper right of the recoil shield on the '58 Remy, and angle the face of the hammer or extended striker so that the cap ejected out the right side. Actually that would work with either the zig zag recoiling cylinder system or the just blowing back of the cap system.

Also with either system the lockwork would have to be modified to where the hammer would stay cocked after the first shot before you released the trigger. Then when the trigger was released, the trigger would reset and functioning it again would drop the hammer. Otherwise the hammer would just automatically go back forward after each shot. Which on the cap only blowing back system would cause it to be a six shot full auto, and on the recoiling zig zag cylinder system would cause the hammer to follow the cylinder forward and either go full auto, or not have enough inertia to pop the cap because it followed the cylinder forward instead of dead falling against a cap.

Just trying to work the best design concepts out in my head. Like the old adage says...."measure twice, cut once".

Thoughts?





.

 

[Bill Akins]

Although this was the first forum I posted about my semi-auto muzzleloading ideas, since then I've posted them at a steampunk forum. Originally I didn't think they would turn out to be "steamy" but then I realized they were very "steampunk" style, so I posted them there too to get ideas from the members and boy did that work out well with one member.

At the Steampunk forum at Brass Goggles, after he saw my semi-auto muzzleloading revolver design concept rendering, fellow member Otto Von Pifka came up with a stroke of genius idea for my semi-auto revolver concept.
Here's what he drew and wrote.....

Otto Von Pifka wrote:
"I didn't draw in the frame and the reloading lever. thinking about it, the lever could retain the plug in the front of the gas cylinder to simplify things."

and here's what I responded to him.....

"Ah! I see. You postulate using an elongated, modified, cylinder arbor pin to double as a gas piston to cock the hammer. Brilliant!
That is a great idea Otto. By making the arbor pin/gas piston spring loaded it would return back forward after cocking the hammer.
Now how could I utilize that piston to also rotate the cylinder without the cylinder having to have zig zag slots and recoil rearward?
Ah! I've got it. The arbor pin/gas piston could have spring loaded lug projections on it that would pivot backward but not forward. The hole in the cylinder for the arbor could have corresponding spiral slots cut into it so that the lugs on the arbor pin/gas piston, were just barely engaging the spiral slots in the central cylinder hole. Then when the gas piston went rearward to cock the hammer, it would also advance the cylinder. Then when the arbor pin/gas piston went back forward again due to its spring decompressing, the lugs sticking out of the arbor would fold back and pass through the central hole of the cylinder. Obviating the need for a zig zag slotted recoiling cylinder, and thus making a longer standard length cylinder possible since it doesn't need space to recoil to advance to the next chamber. Hmmm, very interesting Otto. Kudos and thanks for that idea, that was sheer genius on your part. That possibility never occurred to me.
Do you have any ideas for advancing the cylinder to the next chamber using that arbor pin/gas piston that might be better than the one I proposed with the folding lugs on the arbor pin?"

How about y'all here, anyone have any other ideas for using that arbor pin/gas piston that could cock the hammer, to also advance the cylinder in any better method than the one I conceived of the one way folding/pivoting lugs on the arbor pin engaging spiral slots in the central cylinder hole?

I like this idea. All this would require would be to drill a gas tap on the barrel, weld a gas cylinder to align with it, make a elongated arbor pin that doubled as a gas piston that had one way folding lugs in the pin that engaged spiral cut slots in the cylinder's central arbor hole to advance the cylinder to the next chamber. Otto came up with using the arbor pin as a gas piston and I came up with the one way folding lugs on the arbor pin engaging spiral slots inside the cylinder's center hole. A gas operated, semi-auto, muzzleloading revolver. Wouldn't that just be a hoot? Using pyrodex plus p it wouldn't gum up the gas cylinder.



.

 

[Stephanie B]

Now how could I utilize that piston to also rotate the cylinder without the cylinder having to have zig zag slots and recoil rearward?
Ah! I've got it. The arbor pin/gas piston could have spring loaded lug projections on it that would pivot backward but not forward. The hole in the cylinder for the arbor could have corresponding spiral slots cut into it so that the lugs on the arbor pin/gas piston, were just barely engaging the spiral slots in the central cylinder hole. Then when the gas piston went rearward to cock the hammer, it would also advance the cylinder.

Sounds overly complex to me. If the arbor pin/gas piston is pushing back on the hammer, then why not just utilize the single-action mechanism to also rotate the cylinder?

 

[Bill Akins]

Bill Akins wrote:
Now how could I utilize that piston to also rotate the cylinder without the cylinder having to have zig zag slots and recoil rearward?
Ah! I've got it. The arbor pin/gas piston could have spring loaded lug projections on it that would pivot backward but not forward. The hole in the cylinder for the arbor could have corresponding spiral slots cut into it so that the lugs on the arbor pin/gas piston, were just barely engaging the spiral slots in the central cylinder hole. Then when the gas piston went rearward to cock the hammer, it would also advance the cylinder.

Stephanie B wrote:
Sounds overly complex to me. If the arbor pin/gas piston is pushing back on the hammer, then why not just utilize the single-action mechanism to also rotate the cylinder?

Early on, I thought about doing exactly that Stephanie. And that MIGHT work. But I'm afraid the violent. abrupt force of a gas piston directly against the hammer might be too much without some sort of delay, and cause the cylinder pawl to break and or cause the cylinder to rotate so rapidly that it might overtravel faster than the bolt could drop to lock it in place.

On cartridge semi-autos (unless they are low powered straight blowbacks) you have to slow down the extraction of the cartridge (slow initial extraction) so that the cannelure (rim/groove) of the cartridge case isn't ripped away. The same is true on a semi-auto action using a sufficiently powerful load. You have to slow the action down or risk breaking parts.
If you don't slow the operation down in this instance, it could break delicate cylinder pawl, or wear its end and the ratchet on the rear of the cylinder and also cause that too fast over rotation of the cylinder I was worried about too.

For instance the Steyr Hahn model 1912 semi-auto pistol using a delayed blowback system for it to operate. The Steyr Hahn has big angled lugs on its barrel that ride in corresponding angled slots milled into the frame. The frictional interface of those lugs causes the operation to slow down and also partially rotates the barrel. Also known as "retarded blowback" or "delayed blowback". This enables that pistol to operate without the action being so violently abrupt that it breaks parts, rips the cannelure off the case, or won't operate at all. See the big angled lugs on the Steyr Hahn's barrel and the angled slots on the frame here.....

When I get around to experimenting on making a semi-auto muzzleloader out of a old beater 1858 Remington revolver, the first thing I will do is drill out the nipples and try to get that extra gas force to blow the caps back to fully cock the hammer which as you noted would also rotate the cylinder. It is possible that the cylinder pawl and cylinder ratchet may take the stress without breakage or galling, and it is possible that the cylinder may not overtravel faster than the bolt can drop to lock it. But I have a high probability of fear that I will encounter problems. But it's still worth an initial experimental try to see.

Then if I find that not slowing down the operation of directly blowing caps back against the hammer to operate the revolver doesn't work and is too violent and abrupt, then I will also know that the same would be true of non delayed piston acting against the hammer. In that case I would have to go back to my ideas for slowing down the operation using some form of delaying the operation of the system so it isn't so violent and abrupt.



.

 

[Stephanie B]

Yes, but you're not talking about a delayed blowback or short recoil action. You're mulling over a gas piston. Isn't it going to depend on how much gas you allow into the piston's expansion chamber?

For instance, I have an adjustable gas port on my Garand. I can set that between "all of the gas into the expansion chamber works the operating rod" to "it all gets vented out and the operating rod doesn't budge".

You've got the mass of the arbor/piston, the mass of the hammer, the rotational mass of the cylinder and the resistance of the mainspring, all working against the gas coming into the piston. The key would be to just admit a little bit, just enough to move the hammer back to full cock.

Downside is that once you figure out how to do all that, you're kind of limited to one level of power for your loads, as increasing power would slam the beejeez out of the gun and decreasing power would mean the hammer didn't go all the way back. Not sure where you could install a coil spring to slow down the piston if you wanted to.

Nice mental exercise, but maybe there is a reason why self-cocking revolvers haven't been practical.

 

[Bill Akins]

Stephanie B wrote:
Yes, but you're not talking about a delayed blowback or short recoil action. You're mulling over a gas piston. Isn't it going to depend on how much gas you allow into the piston's expansion chamber?

For instance, I have an adjustable gas port on my Garand. I can set that between "all of the gas into the expansion chamber works the operating rod" to "it all gets vented out and the operating rod doesn't budge".

You've got the mass of the arbor/piston, the mass of the hammer, the rotational mass of the cylinder and the resistance of the mainspring, all working against the gas coming into the piston. The key would be to just admit a little bit, just enough to move the hammer back to full cock.

I once owned a semi-auto .44 Ruger carbine that had an adjustable gas port so that I could increase or decrease the amount of gas. I also have an M1A that like your Garand, has a gas cutoff, but that just cuts off the gas completely rather than gives different setting where it can be decreased or increased.

But what concerns me is that even if I made a gas cylinder adjustable, by decreasing the gas, it still might be too violent and abrupt a movement against the parts even if it didn't have enough force on a decreased setting to actually cock the hammer all the way. It's not the amount of gas pressure I'm as worried about, as it is the speed at which the parts will operate under gas pressure. Even under lowered gas pressure. Even if I was able to carefully dial in the exact precise amount of gas just barely necessary to
cock the hammer, I fear it would still be too violent and abrupt a movement on the parts. That's why I'm trying to figure a way to slow down the movement of those parts.

But you still could be right Stephanie that all I need is to decrease the gas pressure and if I was lucky, the parts might work okay even with the less amount of gas operating them at a high speed. The only way to find that out would be to experiment.

Stephanie B wrote:
Downside is that once you figure out how to do all that, you're kind of limited to one level of power for your loads, as increasing power would slam the beejeez out of the gun and decreasing power would mean the hammer didn't go all the way back. Not sure where you could install a coil spring to slow down the piston if you wanted to.

The amount of gas allowed into the gas cylinder could be made adjustable like on my old Ruger .44 semi-auto carbine was. Then I could vary my powder loads and still dial in the amount of gas I needed for the system to work. Finding a place to install a coil spring to rebound the piston or resist its rearward movement won't be a problem. But I like how you think Stephanie.
It's hard to find many guys who understand this stuff. Even rarer to find a woman who does. I didn't mean that to sound condescending, but as a compliment.

Stephanie B wrote:Nice mental exercise, but maybe there is a reason why self-cocking revolvers haven't been practical.

There could be other reasons Stephanie. The Webley Fosbery semi-auto revolver was both practical and successful. The Mateba semi-auto revolver is another one. I think that's it's not that self cocking revolvers aren't practical, but that only several models have ever been manufactured. I believe that's because "people buy what builders build, and builders build what people buy". And people buy what they are used to and resist change and new systems.

Back in the days of the very first BP revolvers, they were manually cocked.
Then when those revolvers became cartridge loaders, they were still manually cocked (until the Webley Fosbery). So for many generations now people have been used to (and buying) manually cocking revolvers. Then the Webley Fosbery comes out that no one is familiar with and although the RAC issued it to their pilots in WW1, it never really caught on with the general public. Chiefly I believe because people resist change and anything they are not used to. People were used to manually cocked revolvers, just as we are only used to manually cocked muzzleloading revolvers today. It's all we've ever known.

Now today that muzzleloading revolvers are obsolete, most people chiefly shoot them to enjoy the history and engaging in something from the past. Hence the activity in reenactments and Cowboy action shooting. Not too many people are interested in finding a way to make an obsolete muzzleloading revolver work semi-automatically. It wasn't done back then, so they may think why bother doing it now since it's obsolete.

But I think it would be cool to have a semi-auto muzzleloading revolver. It would be an interesting piece of machinery. And now is the time to do it since today we have less fouling black powder substitutes that would enable things like gas pistons on them to operate without fouling up.

I'm just searching and trying to figure out what would be the best system design to use. A zig zag cylinder with elongated firing pin tappet that the zig zag friction system would delay the movement of? Or using drilled out nipples for direct cap/gas blowback against the hammer? Or using a gas piston? All while trying to figure out how those systems would affect the speed, wear and breakage of parts. It's a mechanical thing and I know it can be done. Just trying to figure out what is the best method to use. I can't be cutting up multiple '58 Remys trying to find that out, so I have to figure out the best way to go before experimenting.

Here's another interesting concept that a friend of mine named Akumabito from the Netherlands that also belongs to the Brass Goggles steampunk forum posted, that uses and expands more on the other member Otto's arbor pin/gas piston concept that I posted earlier here. Akumabito proposes I use the frame area as a gas cylinder while using Otto's basic arbor pin/gas piston.
Not a bad idea. It could work but would require drilling up though the bottom of the frame into the barrel, then plugging the frame where I had to drill through what would become the gas cylinder. His gas port is WAY to large but this is just his concept rendering.

Also the lugs of his arbor pin/piston would have to be removed and the arbor pin/piston shortened considerable. Plus he shows the frame hole for the arbor pin being factory closed in its front when it is not. So that open end would have to be threaded and plugged hence the need to remove the arbor pin lugs. The advantage of this concept would be that the rammer could still be used and outwardly for the most part, there would be no indication that the revolver was semi-auto or had been modified. To remove the cylinder the plug would have to be removed from the front of the gas cylinder and the arbor pin/piston pushed from the rear so it came out the front in order to remove the cylinder. Actually a great discrete looking concept if delaying the speed of the operation isn't necessary. Except for the missing arbor pin lugs people would hardly notice anything different just looking at it.

Then here's my concerns I wrote back to him on his rendering at Brass Goggles steampunk forum.....

I also wrote my concerns on Otto's earlier rendering too at Brass Goggles.
Otto's concept is good too and he was the first one to theorize using the arbor pin as a gas operated piston. Only his concept hangs a gas cylinder on the barrel which would cause a trimming of the rammer to make the rammer so thin, as to be unable to be used. I added the rough frame outline in yellow and the red text and arrow to Otto's rendering....

In response to my concerns, Akumabito proposed his rendering of this.....

I haven't had a chance to analyze that "AK" '58 Remy concept of his adequately yet. I did notice he extended the hammer up for the piston to push against. According to him, no mods to the rest of the revolver, no gas hole to drill and nothing in the way of the rammer. Has possibilities, but gosh, I still can't make up my mind if it's cool looking or ugly .

I'm also a little worried about using the gas piston in either Otto's or Akumibito's renderings. Imagine if the part of the gas piston that keeps it from coming out the rear broke and it somehow deflected and got past your cocked hammer. Zing! Right into your face or eye. That's why I still like my idea for utilizing the zig zag cylinder of the Webley Fosbery system. Plus that one has a delay for the operation built in.

Continuing to research.

Thoughts?


.

 

[Double J]

Harmonic detonation

After thinking about it, the term, "Chain-Fire" could be upped to a new level.

 

[Stephanie B]

I don't do cap & ball revolver shooting and I can't recall ever holding a Remington `58. So I don't know if there is the extra room to bore out the center of the cylinder to add a coil spring. Even if there is, would there be an issue with regard to keeping the cylinder aligned with no wobble as the cylinder rotates, the base pin/piston comes back as the cylinder rotates?

Akumabito's idea for a gas piston might be easier, for then you're not messing around with the base pin, nor are you drilling out the cylinder and frame to accommodate a recoil spring. It looks a little funky with the gas cylinder on top, but there would be less need to modify the revolver to try it out.

 

[Bill Akins]

Double J wrote:
Harmonic detonation.
After thinking about it, the term, "Chain-Fire" could be upped to a new level.

I can understand one thinking that at first glance seeing all those many chambers in a row like that on the harmonica block Double J, but actually the possibility of a chain fire with my tripod mounted, muzzleloading harmonica gun concept would be even safer than on a regular muzzleloading revolver. Here's why....

On a six shot muzzleloading revolver one chamber is aligned with the barrel. Four other chambered balls could PARTIALLY hit the frame or barrel area, but the most they would do is dent and deflect the ball. It is the very bottom chamber directly in line with the rammer that is the only one that would really cause a problem in damaging the revolver in a chainfire.

But on my tripod mounted harmonica muzzleloader concept, none of the chambers would be in a position to hit the frame or barrel. One chamber is aligned with the barrel and the other chambers of the harmonica block could be spaced far enough apart so that if the next loaded chamber to the left of the barrel were to chainfire, it would pop the ball out harmlessly without hitting any part of the weapon. Also it would pop out with little force not being under barrel compression.

Even if the chambers were spaced closer together so that the chamber to the left of the one aligned with the barrel were to chainfire and could hit the receiver, instead of having a flat spot there, a slight angle built into the receiver at that point could deflect the ball away from the receiver.

So in reality, the fact that there were a lot of chambers in the harmonica block would be irrelevant to any problems with chainfires.

Here's an interesting analogy.

In the very very early beginnings of aerial combat in WW1, pilots and their observers used pistols and rifles to shoot at opposing enemy pilots. observers could only shoot from the rear seat with a machine gun sideways or at an angle, and this was an era before most planes were even carrying machine guns. This was also before the machine gun was even tried mounted on top of the wing to miss the prop. Usually more powerful engine two seater planes could carry a machine gun, but they always mounted it for the rear observer to use if they did carry one. The very earliest single seat reconnaissance planes were too underpowered to be able to operate effectively with the weight of a machine gun.

Pioneer prewar test pilot and English channel flyer, French aviator Roland Garros worked out that only 10% of machine gun bullets fired forward would hit the prop. So using a souped up single seater, he put a machine gun in front of the pilot and attached steel deflector plates to his prop to deflect those 10% of bullets that would hit the prop. The Germans did not fear a plane flying directly towards them because neither side had been able to shoot at each other forward of the propeller that way yet. So Garros quickly became an ace. Unfortunately in addition to killing his mechanic from a ricochet in test firing the device from the grounded plane in the firing pits, although it worked for awhile, Garros' device was crude and doomed to eventual stress failure.

Eventually the stress of the bullets hitting the plates broke his wooden prop and he landed behind enemy lines and was captured. The Germans captured his plane, gave it to Dutchman Anthony Fokker who came up with a working mechanical interrupter cam where the engine interrupted the gun from firing when the prop blade was in front of the barrel. That gave them an incredible "Fokker Scourge" advantage they enjoyed until the Triple Entente came up with its own hydraulic interrupter gear a year later. (In WW1, the Germans and Austro-Hungarian empire were called "The allies" while the powers that opposed them were known as "The Triple Entente". It was only in WW2 that we became known as "The Allies").

The point is, if the many multiple chambers of my harmonica block concept were grouped close enough together so that the loaded one to the left of the barrel had the rare occasion to chainfire, the angle milled in the receiver just left of the forcing cone, would harmlessly deflect the soft lead ball away from the receiver. Just like the angled deflector plates deflected the much more powerful bullets on Garros' propeller.
Only Garros was using high powered rifle cartridges in his machine gun. I'd be using much less powerful black powder, plus if it did chainfire, it would never have compression coming out of the harmonica block and would only go a short distance with little power.

Still, it would be a good idea to stay totally behind my concept harmonica gun when it was being fired. Just to be on the safe side.


.

 

[Bill Akins]

Stephanie B wrote:
I don't know if there is the extra room to bore out the center of the cylinder to add a coil spring. Even if there is, would there be an issue with regard to keeping the cylinder aligned with no wobble as the cylinder rotates, the base pin/piston comes back as the cylinder rotates?

In analyzing Akumabito's concept rendering, it wouldn't be necessary to put the gas piston rebound spring around the piston inside the cylinder's center hole. The gas piston rebound spring could be put in the gas cylinder itself.
All that would have to be done is a gas tap hole drilled up through the bottom of the frame past the arbor channel in the frame and into the barrel.
Then the hole drilled through the arbor channel's bottom would have to be tapped and plugged and the front of the arbor hole in the frame would also have to be tapped and plugged. A newly made shorter arbor pin/piston with a rebound spring on it is then inserted into the hole that has now become a gas chamber. So contrary to Akumabito's concept rendering, the rebound spring for the gas piston would NOT have to go in the middle of the cylinder.

I don't see a problem with the linear motion of the arbor pin/piston's reciprocating a short distance back and forth inside the center hole of the cylinder causing it to affect the cylinder rotating or causing wobble. If used as Akumabito conceived it, the pawl against the ratchet in the rear of the cylinder and the barrel in the front would serve to hold the cylinder securely in place against wobble. And even if the cylinder DID wobble a teeny tiny fraction of a bit in rotation, once it stopped its rotation and was aligned with the barrel and locked in place ready to fire, it wouldn't matter.

Actually except for his placement of the piston return spring, Akumabito's concept is really good. The only thing I worry about is not the force of the system that could be adjusted by powder load, but the SPEED of the non delayed system being only slowed down by the gas piston spring, the hammer mainspring and the weight of the hammer possibly not being enough to slow the operation sufficiently. Hopefully there would be enough friction and delay to prevent parts breakage, galling of metal parts and cylinder over travel. No real way to tell without building one and testing it.

Stephanie B wrote:

Akumabito's idea for a gas piston might be easier, for then you're not messing around with the base pin, nor are you drilling out the cylinder and frame to accommodate a recoil spring. It looks a little funky with the gas cylinder on top, but there would be less need to modify the revolver to try it out.

I agree it might be easier to build it that way, but I just can't get behind making a Kalashnikov "AK" muzzleloading, semi-auto 1858 Remington. It just looks too modern of an adaptation and wrong looking to me. I want something that still preserves the Victorian "Steampunk" look of what might have been back then. Not something off an AK47 from today.

I think the very first experiment I will try is to get some extra nipples and drill them out to a larger touch hole diameter to allow more gas to pass out the rear of the nipples, which would blow the spent cap off the nipple, which would push the hammer back, hopefully operating the system and we will see if that is too fast a speed and if any problems develop. Then if that doesn't work, I will know that a cap directly blowing back against the hammer is too rapid and violent an action for the system to operate properly.

In that case my next experiment would be to make Akumabito's internal to the frame gas cylinder and try that using a strong return spring on the gas piston to hopefully slow the action down. At least any mods I would do would be mostly inside the revolver and not able to be seen. Then if that didn't work, those mods I did to try using his concept would not interfere with me using the same revolver to build and test my zig zag recoiling cylinder system on. Except I would have to put a plug in the barrel where I drilled the gas tap hole in trying his concept. Or else I'd have to go to the hassle of threading on a new barrel.

As soon as I get an old beater 1858 Remington repro, I think that's going to be my approach when I get the time to get around to experimenting with this.

.

 

[akumabito]

Hiya everyone, Akumabito here from the BrassGoggles forum. I just signed up here because of Bill's project. Thought that this place was better suited to in-depth discussion of firearm tech than the steampunk forum I normally post in. I gotta say I just like bouncing ideas back and forth. I don't actually know a whole lot about firearms. So I guess my quick renderings are what happens when "non-gun-people" start shouting suggestions on gun smithing..

I should probably also add that I've only shot a few guns in my life, and that was quite a few years ago.. Plus, I've never fired a black powder revolver before, nor have I ever even seen an 1858 model revolver in real life, so my understanding of how they fit together and work pretty much comes from pictures on the net and a few YouTube videos. I just enjoy crazy mental excercises I suppose.. and it doesn't get much crazier than an automatic revolver..

Anyhow, could anyone tell me what the diameter is of the pin that holds the cylinder in place? And is there enough material in the frame of the gun as well as the cylinder to drill a slightly larger hole there? For an all-internal solution, I'm pretty sure you'd need a little more space to work with..

By the way, I just discovered that there are no new things under the Sun: I just came across US Patent 4,197,784 - Pretty much the same idea, only in over-barrel style, rather than underneath.. I could not find any references to any prototypes being built, but I suppose it works without causing damage to the gun by cycling too quickly..