Muzzleloading semi-auto/full auto concepts.

[akumabito]

Ok, this one needs a little explaining I think.. I'll start at the bottom. Bottom left is the collar that fits around the barrel of the revolver. Right after that is the gas trap - the diameter is just a bit more than the weapon's caliber. From here, some of the gas is redirected to the top.

Top right is the flow adjuster / gas vent / valve seat. Essentially a threaded piece of metal that fits into the gas tube. Screwing it in any further, reduces the size of the gas intake, and thus the amount of gas available to do work. It pretty much only has to be dialed in once, after that you could use some loctite or something to keep it in place.This piece also has vents, which redirect unused gasses back out to the front of the gun.

Then we have the regulator itself. Essentially just a hollow valve and a spring. Some O-rings for a tighter seal, and that's pretty much all there is to it.

Here's how it works: high-pressure gas enters via the gas trap and enters the high-pressure chamber. Due to the high volume of gas, pressure builds quickly. It'll force its way through one of two pathways: Through the valve, to the low pressure chamber, which is held open by the spring. As soon as the gasses start to amass here, they will want to act on the large valve area on this end. Once pressure in this low-pressure end has built up, it'll push against the head of the valve, overcome the tension of the spring and force the valve shut, thus limiting the gas to a certain volume and pressure, which ought to be safe enough to make the gun work as intended.

Meanwhile, in the high-pressure chamber, the gas will want to get out ASAP, which it can through the holes in the front. Strictly speaking, these aren't even necessary, as once the valve closes, the high pressure gases could escape via the same path thy entered. It might keep the valve from being overwhelmed though..

Anyhow, from there, the safe low-pressure gas then acts on the piston, which is linked to the hammer and that's where the magic happens.


EDIT: by the way, if you could tell me how much force is needed to cock the hammer (at the point where you want to connect the hammer to the piston assembly), and how far back it has to travel, I am pretty sure I could come up with the exact numbers for the volume of gas needed, as well as the required pressure, and with that, calculate the spring tension needed for the regulator to work properly..

Oh, and I did a quick mockup of what it could look like..

 

[Bill Akins]

That is a great idea Akumabito. It solves several problems.

1. It allows unneeded pressure/force to dissipate without a toggle/locomotive wheel type of linkage.

2. It allows just about any grain powder charge the chamber of the cylinder can take to be used.

I like it!

I just have several concerns.

My first concern is this:

The entire valve area and the gas trap area itself has to be able to be easily disassembled for cleaning. Because although some black powder substitutes are much less fouling than black powder, they still have a degree of fouling as does even modern smokeless powder. So easy disassembly for cleaning has to be considered. Here's what I'm thinking....

In keeping with simply having an add on gas tube and hammer, (with minimal internal mods to the lockwork so that the hammer stays back while the trigger is still depressed).......so that except for that lockwork change the muzzleloading revolver stays unmodified, we have to find a way to secure the gas tube over the top of the barrel without modifying the revolver. There are several ways we could do that. One way would be to only use a target sighted 1858 Remington revolver. So that we can utilize the dovetail slots cut into the top of the frame and barrel (for the target style sights)....and by removing those sights, use those dovetail slots to tap a gas tube sideways onto the top of the revolver.

Another way would be that since the 1858 Remington revolver has an 8 sided (octagon) shaped barrel, that we have octagon shaped rings (like a scope ring) attached to the gas tube that then are clamped to the barrel in two locations and the rammer notched slightly to accommodate them. That version could be used for standard 1858 Remington revolvers that do not have the target sight dovetails. My only fear about that version, is that unless the octagon rings were VERY secure, that the whole gas tube assembly MIGHT blow forward on the barrel. But with your gas pressure relief holes in the front of your adjustable gas relief valve, that might not be a concern.

Anyway....HOWEVER we do it, it is a given that we first have to attach the gas tube to the revolver in such a way as it doesn't permanently modify the revolver in that attachment.

Now since your adjustable valve needs to be able to be easily disassembled for cleaning, we have to be able to do that without removing the entire gas tube assembly from the revolver. So I am thinking of something like this.....

Since the gas trap is roughly a short "L" shaped piece extending downward from the upper gas tube to be in front of the barrel's muzzle, how about we make that "L" shaped gas trap piece where it completely unscrews from the rest of the gas tube proper while the rest of the gas tube stays attached to the revolver. Then from the back or front of that removed gas trap, we can also unscrew the entire self adjusting gas valve assembly for easy cleaning.
Or alternately, we don't have to actually remove the gas trap since that could be cleaned with a larger diameter brush than the barrel uses.....and instead of removing the entire gas trap, we are able to simply remove the adjustable plug you showed in your rendering to be able to remove the entire gas valve for cleaning. Would that plug you have at the very front of the gas tube allow for the complete removal of the gas valve and spring for easy cleaning? If it does, problem solved with cleaning the valve and the gas trap could be integral with the gas tube and not have to removed. That would also enable the gas trap to fit OVER the end of the barrel since it wouldn't have to be unscrewed from the gas tube.

But I am still wondering if perhaps the gas trap SHOULD be able to be unscrewed from the rest of the gas tube. Because....if it can't be, then how do we fit that gas trap OVER the end of the barrel while trying to attach the gas tube into dovetail slots sideways? See what I mean? If the gas trap fits OVER the end of the barrel, then we can't gently tap the dovetails built into the gas tube into the dovetail sight slots on the top of the frame and barrel. In that case if the gas tube DID fit OVER The end of the barrel, our only option of attaching the gas tube to the revolver would be with the octagon rings I mentioned earlier.

Could you render up something showing the best of the above keeping in mind that if the gas trap goes OVER the muzzle rather than just in front of it, that it probably could not then be unscrewed from the main gas tube and also we couldn't utilize existing target sight dovetails?

My second concern is this:

Your self adjusting gas valve would be great for trapping just the necessary required gas amount and force to cock the hammer. So that solves the force problem. But what about the SPEED of what is now a decreased gas force? I am wondering if we need to be concerned with that speed even though the brute force is controlled and diminished? Or do you think I am overly concerned and that the piston return spring would resist and slow the speed of the piston down enough to prevent the hammer cocking at too high a speed? Actually it's not the hammer cocking at too high a speed that is really my concern, it is the pawl attached to the hammer that engages the ratchet on the back of the cylinder that concerns me, being operated at a higher speed than it was designed for. I am also concerned that with a high speed, that the bolt that locks the cylinder would not have time to drop into place before the cylinder's slot over traveled that bolt. Might have to increase the bolt spring's tension, which would also increase the trigger tension since they are two tines of the same spring. Or even possibly make them separate tines not attached to each other in one spring. Anyway, the gas force would now be lessened, but the SPEED still concerns me.

The reason I attached the piston to the hammer earlier was because of the toggle/locomotive wheel type of linkage. But if we didn't use the toggle/locomotive wheel linkage, and instead used your self adjusting gas valve (which I like better) there would be no reason to attach the hammer to the piston. Then the hammer's added upward projection would simply always rest (when hammer down) against the rear of the piston and since there wouldn't be any air space between the piston and the hammer's upward projection, there would be no slamming effect. The piston would just always remain in contact with the (modified) hammer, and push the hammer back just like this C96 Broomhandle Mauser's bolt pushes the hammer back with no slamming effect.....

We could still have a nice little area on the back of the piston looking like a luger toggle grip, or we could just have a square or round section on the pistons rear always resting against the projection on the hammer. Like on the Broomhandle or Nambu. Not only would it look good, but it would add an extra margin of safety in case the piston rod ever broke and flew rearward. It also would allow you to either cock the hammer as normally with the thumb, or you could grasp the luger looking or Broomhandle looking or Nambu looking piece on the end of the piston and draw that to the rear thus cocking the hammer too.




.

 

[akumabito]

No time to make a detailed post right now, but when dialing down the pressure significantly, there's a LOT that could be done to slow down the movement, right down to the point where a full cycle could take seconds. Just take a look at pneumatic sliding doors for instance.. Different layout and purpose, but same principles apply..

I'll give it some thought today, and I think I can come up with some good stuff..

 

[Bill Akins]

Akumabito wrote:
there's a LOT that could be done to slow down the movement, right down to the point where a full cycle could take seconds.

That's right. You just jogged my memory. Hiram Maxim had a device like that on his earliest 1880's machine guns. Where he could fire one round, then walk away from the gun and have it fire seconds later or even minutes later on its own. I think he was using some sort of adjustable hydraulic system that tripped the trigger whenever he set it to go off. I remember reading that it surprised a military officer observing it that it could do that. It was discontinued on later models. Sounds like the same principle you were talking about of storing energy hydraulically and releasing it slower.


.

 

[Stephanie B]

It'd be ugly, but if you used a piston driving a small rotating wheel, with the gun's mechanism being operating by a connecting rod coming off the wheel, you could align the piston in almost any direction. That way, if the thing were to come apart, it would blow away from the shooter.

the operation of a steam locomotive's strut and wheels and how when the straight strut went back it turned the wheel a certain distance, then the inertia and counterweight on the wheel made it go the rest of the way around the circle.

Well, not exactly. Those pistons were double-acting, so they had power strokes in both directions of travel. The action of the piston on the other side of the locomotive was offset by 90 degrees, so that when the piston on one side was at either end of its travel, the other one was midway. (Three-cylinder locomotives had their piston-actions offset by 60 degrees.)

Anyway, you probably knew all that, but other folks might not have.

 

[Jo6pak]

This may be a bit late to the party. But when we were dicussing using an AK-style gas system, I remembered that a company makes an adjustable gas block for a PSL
http://www.copesdistributing.net/product_info.php?products_id=1336

 

[Bill Akins]

Stephanie B wrote:
It'd be ugly, but if you used a piston driving a small rotating wheel, with the gun's mechanism being operating by a connecting rod coming off the wheel, you could align the piston in almost any direction. That way, if the thing were to come apart, it would blow away from the shooter.

Good point Stephanie. If the gas were tapped to say a vertically reciprocating piston (not reciprocating horizontally in line with the shooters face) and that piston turned a wheel that operated the mechanism to cock the hammer, then as you said, if the system came apart nothing would fly to the rear into the shooter's face. I like how you think Stephanie. Although not exactly the same (because I hadn't envisioned a vertical piston), that's kind of similar to what I was thinking of earlier with using a toggle/locomotive train wheel that the piston would turn and would redirect that piston's force and travel back forward again. But Akumabito's latest self adjusting gas pressure valve may obviate the necessity for a complicated linkage like that. But as you said, no matter if it looked ugly, it could still work.

Stephanie B quoted Bill Akins who wrote:
the operation of a steam locomotive's strut and wheels and how when the straight strut went back it turned the wheel a certain distance, then the inertia and counterweight on the wheel made it go the rest of the way around the circle.

Stephanie B wrote:
Well, not exactly. Those pistons were double-acting, so they had power strokes in both directions of travel. The action of the piston on the other side of the locomotive was offset by 90 degrees, so that when the piston on one side was at either end of its travel, the other one was midway. (Three-cylinder locomotives had their piston-actions offset by 60 degrees.)
Anyway, you probably knew all that, but other folks might not have.

A good thing to mention for folks Stephanie. I did know that, but I just mentioned the flywheel part of it only to avoid describing how the whole locomotive wheel worked. Which is a deviation from my usual writing a book on every little detail Lol! I did know that the opposite side of the trains wheel strut was located so that as the other side's wheel reached the limit of its travel, the other strut had not and so it helped carry the other opposing wheel past its strut's end of travel binding point.

The flywheel helped to balance out that difference between the strut difference in travel in relation to each other between the opposing wheels, although the counterweight on the wheels does aid via inertia in helping the wheels to get past their end of strut travel "binding" point.

As you mentioned, the train wheel's struts have a power stroke both forward and rearward. Even though it could still operate with just a power stroke in one direction, (just with less power), because even if it only had a power stroke in one direction, the opposing wheel's strut being offset from the other wheel, would always carry the other wheel's strut past its point of wanting to bind at the end of its travel.

I have always been fascinated by how the locomotive wheel works. It has so many possibilities in other applications. When the strut of one train wheel reaches the limit of its forward travel, it has to have something get it rotated just a little past that point so it won't bind, to where the strut can now travel to the rear. So if opposing train wheel struts were timed to where as one reached the limit of its forward travel, and the opposing wheel had just reached the limit of its rearward travel, they would both bind up and not turn. Because neither wheel would be helping the other ones strut to continue past its binding point. So the opposing wheel's struts have to be offset enough from each other so that each opposing wheel and strut helps the other opposing wheel and strut past its end of travel "binding" point.

I've built three prototypes of air and water cooled (truly working water cooled barrel) dress up kits for the Ruger 10/22 that resemble the Maxim and Browning medium machine guns. I use several different brands of crank fire trigger activators on them. You turn the crank just like a pencil sharpener crank (or Gatling gun crank) and that causes a cam to actuate a strut to poke out and function the trigger as the crank is turned. Most of the time 4 times per crank revolution, but there are some cranks that do it 6 and 8 times per crank revolution. Anyway....

I experimented with making offset strut locomotive wheels that I attached to the spindle of the crankfire device in place of the crank handle. I plan to make a mini thimble thumb crank located between the spade grips so that I can literally crank the system to fire (using my two thumbs) as I hold onto the spade grips and the locomotive struts and wheels turn the spindle to function the trigger. That way I can keep both hands on the spade grips while still crank firing the gun. As can be seen in this below video I made of me experimenting with that. If you watch carefully, you can see where as one strut reaches its forward limit of its travel rotating one wheel, the other sides strut is offset so that it hasn't reached its forward limit yet, and thus continues to turn the spindle and that gets the other wheel's strut past its binding point. Thus each wheel always helps the other wheel past any forward or rear travel strut bind point.

I could use more wheels and struts connected together or a mini bicycle type chain/sprocket linkage, a belt, or even gears to connect the locomotive wheels to get to my mini thumb crank between the spade grips. I don't have the mini thumb crank for between the spade grips fabricated yet, but you can still see the basic idea of it working by my just working the struts.......

http://good-times.webshots.com/video/3025655810099763970ivXHkP

And another video with me putting the crank handle back on one side of the crank fire trigger activator's spindle, and then putting just one locomotive style wheel on the other side....seeking to use what is now wasted movement of the other side of the spindle to power another operation......

http://good-times.webshots.com/video/3084444470099763970qFLrCs

I just wanted to share that, to show how a locomotive train wheel and strut has applications to not only power a system by a piston reciprocating in virtually any direction and it doesn't matter to the wheel it turns whether the piston is vertical or horizontal just as you suggested and pointed out Stephanie, but to also show how the locomotive strut and wheel can redirect a piston's rearward force back forward again, and vice versa. As well as how just a single locomotive wheel on the opposite side of a spindle that is already being rotated by a source that does not require offset wheel struts, can allow that single locomotive type wheel to operate another function and therefore not waste that motion that is already being used anyway.

I still like the locomotive wheel/toggle linkage concept for redirecting the piston's force and direction. But Akumabito has shown a really good system for an adjustable gas amount valve, that once the plug is screwed in to a certain point, will self adjust to where no matter how much gas comes to the valve, it will only allow just so much gas to pass and the rest of the gas is vented outside the gas tube. I have to admit that is a much less bulky and less complicated system than locomotive wheels/toggle linkages.

But still, after reading your post Stephanie and continuing to think about locomotive wheels, allow me to indulge in a bit of fanciful thinking, which although fanciful and cumbersome, would still work.....

Visualize a gas trap over the end of the barrel on the 1858 Remington revolver. Now visualize TWO short gas tube chambers attached vertically from that gas trap powering two separate pistons vertically and which turn two separate wheels at the upper front area of the barrel (your front sight would be BETWEEN the two wheels). Now visualize two offset struts going rearward from those two front of barrel locomotive wheels at the gas trap, going to and connecting to two more locomotive wheels that are located over the hammer at the rear of the revolver. When the shot fired, gas would go into the gas trap, then go to TWO short vertical gas tubes, powering TWO pistons, which would turn TWO locomotive wheels, which would have TWO offset struts going to the rear to another set of TWO locomotive wheels attached over the top of the hammer. Then a cam on the spindle connecting those two over the hammer locomotive wheels would cock the hammer as the wheels rotated!

We could even use Akumabito's latest pressure limiting relief valve and hook that up to a little steam whistle so that excess steam...er...gas from the valve, would toot the whistle! The steam whistle could even be the front sight. Then shout "All aboard!" just before we fired. Lol! We could even put a little cow catcher on the front of the gas trap to aid in protecting the front vertical gas tubes/wheels and struts when they were funneled into a monster of a holster!

With it having four wheels on top in line with each other, if we made it full auto and tied the trigger back, we could even turn it upside down, put it on the ground, pull the hammer and release it, and it would roll along on its own for six shots like a kid's toy train shooting and tooting! Lol! You know...."It's for the children". The anti-gunners would love that. Laughing so hard I think I hurt myself!

Hilarious though it sounds....it would work!

But anyone even contemplating building such a six shot, semi-auto, muzzleloading revolver of mass destruction should be immediately sent to a re-education camp, forced to wear pink and listen to Yoko Lennon songs and with toothpicks holding their eyelids open like in "A clockwork Orange" forced to repeatedly watch Rebecca Peters re-education videos extolling the horrors of guns in the hands of anyone other than the police of the new world order funded by George Soros, until they "got their mind right" like Paul Newman in "Cool hand Luke".

But seriously, Baronet Sir George Cayley built, and perhaps flew, using internal and external combustion gunpowder-fueled model aircraft engines in 1807, 1819 and 1850. That's a true fact. So don't laugh, okay go ahead and laugh Lol.

Or we could do away with the front wheels, and just have copper tubing running back on both sides of the barrel, bringing the gas from the gas trap, back to the rear, to two separate vertical gas tubes/pistons connected to two wheels over the hammer that have a cam on the wheel spindle to cock the hammer. Hmmm, that would actually look kinda cool and be a lot less cumbersome at the front of the barrel than a four wheeled version. I actually kind of like that idea. Instead of one long piston traveling to the rear, (in line with a persons eye), instead gas traveling rearward in copper tubes from the front of barrel gas trap, would power two small vertical pistons in small short gas tubes either over the hammer, or to each side of the hammer. Then those pistons would turn two small locomotive style wheels located over the top of the hammer. And a cam on the spindle of the wheels would cock the hammer. Every time you fired, the two pistons attached to struts would move up and down and rotate the wheels which would turn and the cam on the wheel's spindle would cock the hammer.

It would not only be a "Steampunk" gas operated, semi-auto muzzleloading revolver....It would be a "Steam LOCOMOTIVE punk" gas operated, semi-auto muzzleloading revolver. The ULTIMATE "steampunk" weapon if ever there was one. LOL!!!

Okay, the aliens are coming anytime now to kidnap me for this new steampunk gun technology I just revealed!

Sorry, just had to indulge in that. But seriously, the principle is sound and it could be built and actually work! That's the hilariously funny thing about it!

Okay, I've stopped laughing at my own fanciful silliness now. Back to discussing the best design for this muzzleloading semi-auto revolver.

Can't wait to see what Akumabito's latest rendering will be, based on mine and his last posts regarding his pressure limiting spring valve concept, and the system speed concerns I listed in my last post.

And I appreciate you Stephanie B, Jo6pak, Blue Train, Akumabito, and all the other members who have participated thus far in this thread. It's been and continues to be a fun discussion into possibilities. Hopefully it will lead to some interesting prototypes.


.

 

[Bill Akins]

Jo6pak wrote:
This may be a bit late to the party. But when we were dicussing using an AK-style gas system, I remembered that a company makes an adjustable gas block for a PSL
http://www.copesdistributing.net/product_info.php?products_id=1336

Thanks for that gas block link Jo. That looks very interesting. I read the description and was hoping it would explain exactly how it operated. But it didn't and only mentioned its effects and how to install it. I wonder if it operates on the same gas limiting spring valve like Akumatibito was proposing?
Anyone here know how it operates internally? I see a nut that obviously has some effect, but I wonder if it just makes the expansion chamber in front of the piston larger or smaller, or partially covers the gas tap hole or acts like Akumabito's sliding valve, self limiting, spring loaded, gas valve concept?
I think I'll give them a call and ask them. But whew! $100.00 for a gas block unit.



.

 

[Stephanie B]

Baronet Sir George Cayley built, and perhaps flew, using internal and external combustion gunpowder-fueled model aircraft engines in 1807, 1819 and 1850.

Why not? If I remember correctly, the very first diesels were designed to operate on coal dust.

a locomotive train wheel and strut has applications to not only power a system by a piston reciprocating in virtually any direction and it doesn't matter to the wheel it turns whether the piston is vertical or horizontal

The Heisler logging locomotive is a fine example of that.

 

[Jo6pak]

@Bill. A co-worker is considering this gas-block for a PSL build. That's how I knew about it. If he orders it soon, I can get a look at it, and see how it functions.

As soon as he mentioned it, I immediately thought of this project

 

[Bill Akins]

Jo6pak wrote:
@Bill. A co-worker is considering this gas-block for a PSL build. That's how I knew about it. If he orders it soon, I can get a look at it, and see how it functions. As soon as he mentioned it, I immediately thought of this project

Thanks Jo. Yes please let us know how it operates after you look at it.

You know as soon as Akumabito showed his concept rendering of a adjustable gas pressure relief valve, I immediately thought of a similar type of pressure relief valve that is on my air compressor. That when too much pressure in the compressor's air tank is present, it automatically opens to vent pressure from the tank so it won't over pressurize. But that valve in my air tank is set to just one pressure rating and is not adjustable.

What would be great to find is, an off the self (so it doesn't have to be fabricated) adjustable pressure relief valve that is about 1/2 inch or smaller in diameter so that it could screw into the front of the gas tube where the gas tube meets the gas port hole coming from the gas trap. So the valve could be easily unscrewed from the gas tube assembly for cleaning. I thought about looking into an adjustable air pressure valve, but it would be best to have one that didn't use O rings that could be damaged by the heat or pressure of hot gas blowing by and by not having O rings would not collect as much fouling which could build up around O rings. The best would be to have one that was all brass or steel with no rubber O rings.

But since a lot of air compressor valves do use O rings and sometimes even cone shaped rubber ends on their valves (like mine does), I have to look for one that doesn't. Or perhaps look for a STEAM pressure relief valve, that is already made to take high heat, that would either have no O rings, or have high temperature O rings. And again, it has to be the correct diameter to screw into the frontal area of the gas tube. I think that would do the same thing as Akumabito's concept, but be an off the self item ready to utilize and make fabricating this system much easier. Akumabito's idea is a really good one and I'm going to start a hunt for the right kind of adjustable off the shelf valve. But if one doesn't exist exactly like is needed, I may have to make one.


.

 

[Lou G.]

Semi-Auto Black-Powder Guns

A U.S. patent issued to C. E. Barnes in 1856 for a rapid-fire gun (#15,315) included a provision for automatically pushing the hammer to full-cock by means of gas escaping rearward from the nipple. Obviously, this principle could have been applied to a typical percussion revolver of the time: gas escaping through an enlarged nipple channel and blowing the hammer to full-cock would have rotated the cylinder in the usual manner.

The earliest patent I've found for a true gas-operated revolver is Br. Pat. #14,130 of 1886, issued to Richard Paulson. Gas tapped off under the barrel acts on a spring-loaded piston attached to an operating rod, which slides rearward through a hollow cylinder pin to cock the hammer. Details are given in A.W.F. Taylerson's book "The Revolver, 1865-1888."

 

[akumabito]

Interestingly, both ideas were re-invented in this thread.

Bill had the idea to enlarge the nipples, allowing more gas to escape out the rear. Otto and myself came up with ideas of pushing back the hammer through a modified arbor pin.

Anyhow, I've been buy with work for the past few days, but now I'm back to kick this thread back to page 1 where it belongs

Most commerically available regulators are rather bulky. I've found this manufacturer that is making a nice and compact unit, but with a base price of $150, plus nearly a hundred more for a modicum of protection against BP residue, I don't think it's a viable option.

So then I started looking at commercially manufactured airgun regulators. There's these which go for $80. There are a few more, but they tend to be for very specific applications. There are also paintball regulators. A little too large in most cases, plus they tend to be sealed units, making maintenance prtty difficult.

I'll have to poke around some more, but for now it seems the DIY route would still work out best..

 

[Bill Akins]

It's too bad that one is so expensive Akumabito. In looking at the drawing of its internals at that first link, that one might have been just the thing. I saw the regulator at your second link, but nothing there about its internals. We would definitely need one that would be adjustable over a range of pressure.


.

 

[batjka]

This is all great, and you guys have come up with some nice ideas. However, I don't see anyone discussing how to add a DISCONNECTOR to the 1858 Remington lockwork. And without a disconnector the hammer will just follow the piston back to the cylinder without setting off the cap. Just another thing to think about.

 

[Bill Akins]

Batja wrote:
This is all great, and you guys have come up with some nice ideas. However, I don't see anyone discussing how to add a DISCONNECTOR to the 1858 Remington lockwork. And without a disconnector the hammer will just follow the piston back to the cylinder without setting off the cap. Just another thing to think about.

Good thinking Batja, but if you will re-read back through the thread, you will see that I mentioned multiple times in my posts that the lockwork would have to be modified so that when the trigger was functioned and the hammer cocked semi-automatically from the shot, that the hammer would stay to the rear even though the trigger was still depressed, and that the trigger would then have to be released so it could reset in order to drop the hammer when the trigger was functioned again. Otherwise as you recognized, without modifying for a disconnector as you mentioned, the hammer would just follow the piston back forward and might not have enough inertia to pop the cap....or even if it did pop the cap, it would go full auto, and the idea here is to make a semi-auto 1858 Remington, not a full auto one.

In fact I just received a stainless 1858 hammer in the mail today that I bought on gunbroker with the idea of modifying it so that when the trigger was functioned and the hammer pushed back from the shot, that the hammer would stay in the cocked position even though the trigger was still depressed. Then when the trigger was released that would reset the sear so that when the trigger was functioned again that would drop the hammer.

So good thinking on your part Batja, and be assured we are well aware of that.


.

 

[Southron]

You Won't BE The First!

I recall reading somewhere that in the 1600's an inventor demonstrated a firearm that fired semi-automatically in England. Unfortunately, he didn't patent it and no description of the gun has survived the years.

Go to a local technical college that has teaches CAD/CAM courses and design your gun on a computer! See how the computer model would work!

GOOD LUCK!

 

[Bill Akins]

Sorry I haven't been posting recently as much fellas. I've been busy with some projects. I'll continue to try and post more when I can but things have been pretty hectic lately. When things slow down a bit, I hope to get back on figuring out and making some of these concepts we've been discussing. In the meantime, continue posting your ideas and I'll try to get in here when I can to read them.


.

 

[Asgardnz]

Mysterious Island(2005) guns

I know the man that made the harmonica rifles used in the movie. As I recall some were fully functional, some blank firing and some non firing. There may have been a breachloading one. I will ask him. He used to manufacture and export black powder firearms from New Zealand years ago. He is an amazing engineer. I also know the armourer who worked on the film and he may remember why there are continuity problems between shots. I remember playing with one of the rifles and this weekend just bidded on a blank firing one at an auction(Militaria.co.nz).
Just spoke to a friend who said some of the rifles where chambered for .38 cartridges. He said the director kept telling the actor to turn the cocking handle the wrong way and the rifle maker was on set but the director refused to listen to him.

 

[Bill Akins]

I found the man who was the asst movie armourer for the Mysterious Island 2005 movie harmonica rifles. His name is Kevin Godkin and as you mentioned Asgardnz, he is in New Zealand where you live. I wrote to him from his Moviearmourer.com website and he responded.

My inquiry.....

To: admin@moviearmourer.com
Subject: Movie Armourer: Your being armorer on the harmonica rifles of "Mysterious Island 2005"
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 00:19:49 -0500
From: Akins_Bill@yahoo.com

This is an enquiry e-mail via http://moviearmourer.com/ from:
Bill Akins <Akins_Bill@yahoo.com>

Dear Mr Godkin.

For some time I have tried to research and find out more about the Captain Nemo harmonica rifles from the 2005 movie "Mysterious Island". But I was unable to find any information. There seemed to be nothing on the internet in the way of pictures of text information about those harmonica rifles.
I did download the movie and by watching and replaying the segments of the harmonica rifles firing, I was able to understand somewhat how they operate. I found out that you were an armorer on that movie and was hoping that you might be able to provide me with more accurate information on exactly how they worked, what happened to them, if they still exist and if any of them are available for purchase. Any pictures or information that you could provide would be much appreciated.
Sincerely, Bill Akins

Mr Godkin's response....

Hi Bill ,
I cant give you all the info at present as i'm in Bangkok what country are you in, I will not be back in NZ about next week ,we have been planning to put some pictures of one on our web site but as you may see its still under construction we have one in our armoury and I know where the rest are.
Regards Kevin Godkin.

I wrote to Mr Godkin in the middle of Sept, and except for his above response, I haven't heard back from him since then.


Asgardnz, sounds like you may be knowledgeable with how these harmonica rifles operated and advanced the harmonica block. What a stroke of luck that you actually know the man who built them Asgardnz. Did Kevin Godkin actually build them or was it someone else? Would you please fill us in on anything else that you know about them that you haven't already mentioned? Also if you know of any more pictures of them that might be available online. Did they have any pics online from that auction where they were selling one you mentioned?


.