Pentagonal cylinder?
- Thread starter r010159
- Start date
on barrel making.
Early barrels were either folded over a mandrel along the length of the barrel and then rounded OR several pieces of equal length iron were wrapped in helical fashion over the mandrel until the length was made. The barrel was then bored and then grounded. Turning it concentric on a lathe made grinding the flats easier later.
Forging dies allowed for forging of flats and depends how well it is executed by the craftsmen involved. This would simplify the barrel making process.
Making a barrel from a solid, octagon (or round) bar stock is possible but boring it concentric isn't. The bore can be off but this can be easily fixed when the barrel is turned round on a lathe. We see this even when modern barrels are made. Of couse, once the barrel is shortened and then turned on a lathe, it is concentric. It then has to be milled for flats. I did this with the half-round barrel, flintlock style 10/22 I made.
Returning to the cylinder. It's round when see from the top (chamber end).
Early barrels were either folded over a mandrel along the length of the barrel and then rounded OR several pieces of equal length iron were wrapped in helical fashion over the mandrel until the length was made. The barrel was then bored and then grounded. Turning it concentric on a lathe made grinding the flats easier later.
Forging dies allowed for forging of flats and depends how well it is executed by the craftsmen involved. This would simplify the barrel making process.
Making a barrel from a solid, octagon (or round) bar stock is possible but boring it concentric isn't. The bore can be off but this can be easily fixed when the barrel is turned round on a lathe. We see this even when modern barrels are made. Of couse, once the barrel is shortened and then turned on a lathe, it is concentric. It then has to be milled for flats. I did this with the half-round barrel, flintlock style 10/22 I made.
Returning to the cylinder. It's round when see from the top (chamber end).
@4V50 Gary: Can questions be asked online to those two orginizations?
@Hawg: So Colt did use steel before the 1880s, correct? However, I do not think they used steel for all parts of the firearm, correct? Is there a book that has this information?
OK now, at this point, I want to restate my original question. There are scuff marks occuring at the same location after each cylinder stop, forming a pentagonal pattern. So what is causing these scuff marks? This is why I think the cylinder wall is slightly deformed into a pentagonal shape.
What do you think has caused the pentagonal form of my cylinder on the Baby Dragoon? Either it is a natural outcome of the manufacturing process, or a mistake was made during its manufacture. Perhaps when the chambers were drilled? What can I measure to determine which one? How about a method to just determine what is creating these longitudinal scuff marks? If the chambers were drilled into metal stock before it was formed into a cylinder, then it may be due to the manufacturing process. Otherwise, perhaps something went wrong when the chambers were drilled? After all, the cylinder does have five chambers. That may not be a coincidence. Perhaps something else?
Here is a mediocre photo of the problem. Do you see the marks across the cylinder before each chamber? Fortunately, these marks have not defaced the cylinder scene under magnification. I have a coating of grease on the pistol.
FWIW This has been the most enlightening discussion I have had here. BTW I just purchased the book "Fighting Iron: A Metals Handbook for Arms Collectors" by Art Gogan. This should give me the metallurgical side of the picture.
Bob
@Hawg: So Colt did use steel before the 1880s, correct? However, I do not think they used steel for all parts of the firearm, correct? Is there a book that has this information?
OK now, at this point, I want to restate my original question. There are scuff marks occuring at the same location after each cylinder stop, forming a pentagonal pattern. So what is causing these scuff marks? This is why I think the cylinder wall is slightly deformed into a pentagonal shape.
What do you think has caused the pentagonal form of my cylinder on the Baby Dragoon? Either it is a natural outcome of the manufacturing process, or a mistake was made during its manufacture. Perhaps when the chambers were drilled? What can I measure to determine which one? How about a method to just determine what is creating these longitudinal scuff marks? If the chambers were drilled into metal stock before it was formed into a cylinder, then it may be due to the manufacturing process. Otherwise, perhaps something went wrong when the chambers were drilled? After all, the cylinder does have five chambers. That may not be a coincidence. Perhaps something else?
Here is a mediocre photo of the problem. Do you see the marks across the cylinder before each chamber? Fortunately, these marks have not defaced the cylinder scene under magnification. I have a coating of grease on the pistol.
FWIW This has been the most enlightening discussion I have had here. BTW I just purchased the book "Fighting Iron: A Metals Handbook for Arms Collectors" by Art Gogan. This should give me the metallurgical side of the picture.
Bob
Last edited:
Contact them through their respective National Park Sites. The National Park is more than Jellystone, Ranger Rick, Yogi & Booboo. Rangers do their best to answer questions relevant to their park site.
BTW, that cylinder does look round with partial flats. As to the cylinder notches not being concentric, that is normal wear from the bolt striking it and peening the material that way.
BTW, that cylinder does look round with partial flats. As to the cylinder notches not being concentric, that is normal wear from the bolt striking it and peening the material that way.
Very interesting info.
Somewhat off topic... currently there are some original Richard Mason style conversion cylinders for sale on Gunbroker. You can see where they cut and "milled?" down the rear of the cylinder.
Search "conversion cylinder" on gunbroker and 1 or 2 auctions should show up. IIRC - they seem reasonably priced for a collector.
$44 - 36cal
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=557386836
$299! - 44 cal 1860
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=557567908
Was just thinking to myself - wonder why I don't see a whole bunch of period conversion revolvers on GB? They are there...
Colt
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=555709857
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=557143183
Remington:
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=557193817
Somewhat off topic... currently there are some original Richard Mason style conversion cylinders for sale on Gunbroker. You can see where they cut and "milled?" down the rear of the cylinder.
Search "conversion cylinder" on gunbroker and 1 or 2 auctions should show up. IIRC - they seem reasonably priced for a collector.
$44 - 36cal
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=557386836
$299! - 44 cal 1860
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=557567908
Was just thinking to myself - wonder why I don't see a whole bunch of period conversion revolvers on GB? They are there...
Colt
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=555709857
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=557143183
Remington:
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=557193817
Last edited:
As Hawg pointed out , there is a difference between Steel and iron. BIG difference .
Silver steel was the initial stages of making steel . While it still wasn’t the steel we know today , it was much harder then iron
A forged barrel stock is rounded at least initially while being formed around the mandrel and during the hammer welding process by the use of forming / swage blocks .
While flats can also be initially formed during this same process , they still have to be draw filed to clean them up. Thus making any octagon derived from the forging process , nothing more then an initial starting point for the flats which must be trued and brought down to final shap and thickness .
Iron barrels depending on who was making them and the type being made, were either a forged sculpt “ think welled seam” or wrapped around the mandrel like they did Damascus which produces a lot longer weld.
Mixing of different irons and iron contents produced stub, pattern and later the highly patterned Damascus type barrels. I would be greatly surprised to read that colt used any of those processes on their side arms .
This is an old video of Gusler in his much younger days . Still a very good video though . You will see not only the forge process but the draw filing . What you don’t however see is how much work it took to get the barrel down to final shape .
Photo thanks to Bookie at Toad Hall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lui6uNPcRPA
By the 1860’s arsenals were trying to drill bar stock vs. forge . The reason was that cartridge evolution was fast gaining ground , our arsenals could not keep up with demand and the Europeans were out producing us and importing cheaper then we could manufacture especially when it cam to the manufacturing guilds at Liege . Steel was also being used more and more vs the older iron
But what we were trying to implied was old technologies that had been discarded in favor of forging a tube as the blank . .
mass production was attempting to use large counter weights to force barrels onto the drilling machines .
This produced run out in the barrel stock just as with the forging process . When the barrels were then milled round what was produced was a substandard product that had thinner walls and often failed . Especially once harder barrel steel was being attempted .
The English however approached the issue from a differently . Their approach produced a drilled barrel with a much truer bore . One that could then be turned with out concern .
Thus we ended up with a complete British factory being purchase , moved board and nail to the US and the plant workers training our own workers here .
. Again I don’t do much concerning revolvers , but was not 1848 or there about when Colt hired Whitney to help produce his orders for the military ?
Prior to that as I understand it were they not fitted and assembled by hand ?
If that is trully the case then simply put , the shape of your cylinder could very well be a result of the manufacturing and fitting process of the time
Silver steel was the initial stages of making steel . While it still wasn’t the steel we know today , it was much harder then iron
A forged barrel stock is rounded at least initially while being formed around the mandrel and during the hammer welding process by the use of forming / swage blocks .
While flats can also be initially formed during this same process , they still have to be draw filed to clean them up. Thus making any octagon derived from the forging process , nothing more then an initial starting point for the flats which must be trued and brought down to final shap and thickness .
Iron barrels depending on who was making them and the type being made, were either a forged sculpt “ think welled seam” or wrapped around the mandrel like they did Damascus which produces a lot longer weld.
Mixing of different irons and iron contents produced stub, pattern and later the highly patterned Damascus type barrels. I would be greatly surprised to read that colt used any of those processes on their side arms .
This is an old video of Gusler in his much younger days . Still a very good video though . You will see not only the forge process but the draw filing . What you don’t however see is how much work it took to get the barrel down to final shape .
Photo thanks to Bookie at Toad Hall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lui6uNPcRPA
By the 1860’s arsenals were trying to drill bar stock vs. forge . The reason was that cartridge evolution was fast gaining ground , our arsenals could not keep up with demand and the Europeans were out producing us and importing cheaper then we could manufacture especially when it cam to the manufacturing guilds at Liege . Steel was also being used more and more vs the older iron
But what we were trying to implied was old technologies that had been discarded in favor of forging a tube as the blank . .
mass production was attempting to use large counter weights to force barrels onto the drilling machines .
This produced run out in the barrel stock just as with the forging process . When the barrels were then milled round what was produced was a substandard product that had thinner walls and often failed . Especially once harder barrel steel was being attempted .
The English however approached the issue from a differently . Their approach produced a drilled barrel with a much truer bore . One that could then be turned with out concern .
Thus we ended up with a complete British factory being purchase , moved board and nail to the US and the plant workers training our own workers here .
. Again I don’t do much concerning revolvers , but was not 1848 or there about when Colt hired Whitney to help produce his orders for the military ?
Prior to that as I understand it were they not fitted and assembled by hand ?
If that is trully the case then simply put , the shape of your cylinder could very well be a result of the manufacturing and fitting process of the time
Last edited:
A lengthy but informative read. https://www.eliwhitney.org/7/museum/eli-whitney/arms-production
I am thinking that this is the case. This is where the unusual, crude form and fitting of the cylinder on my Baby Dragoon came from the production methods in use at the time. I have a 1849 Pocket that does not have these issues. So something happened between the manufacture of those two models.
If the cylinder was manufactured in this way, then it must of not have started perfectly round. Sorry for my ignorance here, but perhaps the "grinder" or "lathe" used was not able to completely round out the crudely formed pentagonal shape. I think it was hand fitted from there. I have not handled enough BDs to know any different. Lathes were being used by Colt at least by 1849.
I want to note that each rounded corner of the pentagonal shape occurs before each chamber. So would this mean that the drilling of each chamber did not contribute to the shape of the cylinder? Someone here mentioned of the possibility of the chambers drilled before the cylinder was turned.
Bob
PS @Captchee: Thanks for the video!
If the cylinder was manufactured in this way, then it must of not have started perfectly round. Sorry for my ignorance here, but perhaps the "grinder" or "lathe" used was not able to completely round out the crudely formed pentagonal shape. I think it was hand fitted from there. I have not handled enough BDs to know any different. Lathes were being used by Colt at least by 1849.
I want to note that each rounded corner of the pentagonal shape occurs before each chamber. So would this mean that the drilling of each chamber did not contribute to the shape of the cylinder? Someone here mentioned of the possibility of the chambers drilled before the cylinder was turned.
Bob
PS @Captchee: Thanks for the video!
Last edited:
Drilling a chamber and shaping the cylinder exterior are two separate machine operations. The shaping, IMO, was for lightening purposes.
Grinding has been around, but remember synthetic grinder wheels were not used in the 17-1800s. That's how flats were made on octagon barrels.
Todays grinders today are capable of making individual bullets (saw that at one place in CA) where one guy, if he wasn't making pins as a subcontactor, was making match bullets for himself.
Grinding has been around, but remember synthetic grinder wheels were not used in the 17-1800s. That's how flats were made on octagon barrels.
Todays grinders today are capable of making individual bullets (saw that at one place in CA) where one guy, if he wasn't making pins as a subcontactor, was making match bullets for himself.
Just as sort of an update. Upon very close examination, the cylinder of the Baby Dragoon has been developing secondary longitudal scuff narks. There is one and sometimes two marks between the each original pentagonal rub mark. So from what I can see, an irregular shape is being "painted" by these markings on the cylinder. Result of drilled chambers? Result of the forming process of the cylinder? Two separate operations that possibly can yield similar results with respect to its irregular shape. Perhaps even a manufacturing defect? This observation may help me understand what is causing the scuff marks, which may also provide clues to the early manufacture of Baby Dragoons.
Bob
FWIW I have stopped rotating the cylinder a few weeks ago. It is just that under the right light, I can see more. Additionally, under strong magnification, I see little evidence of these rub marks having damaged the cylinder scene.
Update: Let me make a WAG here. The drilling of the chambers contributed to the irregular shape that the grinder or lathe did not completely round out. Then the cylinder was hand fitted to the frame.
Bob
FWIW I have stopped rotating the cylinder a few weeks ago. It is just that under the right light, I can see more. Additionally, under strong magnification, I see little evidence of these rub marks having damaged the cylinder scene.
Update: Let me make a WAG here. The drilling of the chambers contributed to the irregular shape that the grinder or lathe did not completely round out. Then the cylinder was hand fitted to the frame.
Last edited:
R. L. Wilson's Colt: An American Legend
Look at the center image on page 86. It is a Colt 1861 Navy with similar flats on the cylinder.
Study the cylinder. Those "flats" were machined in. It was not some accident of manufacturing process that made the exterior of the cylinder semi-pentagonal. Also look at the bottom right image on page 38 of a British made Baby Dragoon.
Look at the center image on page 86. It is a Colt 1861 Navy with similar flats on the cylinder.
Study the cylinder. Those "flats" were machined in. It was not some accident of manufacturing process that made the exterior of the cylinder semi-pentagonal. Also look at the bottom right image on page 38 of a British made Baby Dragoon.
I have the common man's edition.
BTW, I was looking at James Serven's book, Colt Firearms (From 1836) and it is silent as to the manufacturing/machining process. I could not detect any "flats" on the cylinders of the Little Dragoon (pages 110-3).
Why not take a picture from an angle? Your straight on shots shows a round cylinder. Your side shots don't show much more to suggest there is a pentagonal shape to the cylinder. However, from what I saw at the Thunderbird Museum, I know there were semi-flats machined on the cylinder.
BTW, don't forget that these things were generally polished and blued before leaving the factory. Most machine marks would have been removed during the polishing process.
BTW, I was looking at James Serven's book, Colt Firearms (From 1836) and it is silent as to the manufacturing/machining process. I could not detect any "flats" on the cylinders of the Little Dragoon (pages 110-3).
Why not take a picture from an angle? Your straight on shots shows a round cylinder. Your side shots don't show much more to suggest there is a pentagonal shape to the cylinder. However, from what I saw at the Thunderbird Museum, I know there were semi-flats machined on the cylinder.
BTW, don't forget that these things were generally polished and blued before leaving the factory. Most machine marks would have been removed during the polishing process.
foolzrushn
New member
r010159
This thread has drawn much interest. From the photos so far of your cylinder, I can not truly see the longitudinal marks on the cylinders, or the pentagonal Outside Diameter. What I do think I saw was a difference in the wall thickness, of the individual cylinder holes to the outside cylinder surface.
Understand I am not disputing it, just saying I can't tell from the photos. I do know how difficult it is to show fine details of parts in photos.
Is there some way for you to show even more enlarged (closer) views with your equipment, or perhaps a friends equipment? Those might show the longitudinal and other scuffs on the cylinder. Also perhaps a closeup of the installed cylinder, from the side, with light from behind to highlight the cylinder to frame clearance. And maybe a closeup of the frame with the cylinder removed, showing where the cylinder rubs.
Another thing might be to carefully cut a circle from card stock with a compass or better use a circle template, that would just fit around the OD of the cylinder. Then a photo of the cylinder openings with the close true circle around it, would highlight the pentagonal shape.
Just some ideas to help the rest of us see what you can see. I know that I have had to move the light source around to avoid reflections and really fight to show details in photos. It's not easy. Just suggestions.
This thread has drawn much interest. From the photos so far of your cylinder, I can not truly see the longitudinal marks on the cylinders, or the pentagonal Outside Diameter. What I do think I saw was a difference in the wall thickness, of the individual cylinder holes to the outside cylinder surface.
Understand I am not disputing it, just saying I can't tell from the photos. I do know how difficult it is to show fine details of parts in photos.
Is there some way for you to show even more enlarged (closer) views with your equipment, or perhaps a friends equipment? Those might show the longitudinal and other scuffs on the cylinder. Also perhaps a closeup of the installed cylinder, from the side, with light from behind to highlight the cylinder to frame clearance. And maybe a closeup of the frame with the cylinder removed, showing where the cylinder rubs.
Another thing might be to carefully cut a circle from card stock with a compass or better use a circle template, that would just fit around the OD of the cylinder. Then a photo of the cylinder openings with the close true circle around it, would highlight the pentagonal shape.
Just some ideas to help the rest of us see what you can see. I know that I have had to move the light source around to avoid reflections and really fight to show details in photos. It's not easy. Just suggestions.
Here is an update. The cylinder is a bit out of round by a few thousandth of an inch. I see where it is rubbing on the inside of the frame, next to where the cylinder stop bolt goes through the frame. The arbor is loose, which I think is contributing to this problem.
I think the problem of the longitudinal scuff marks has devalued my Baby Dragoon. However, most of the damage has been due to the rubbing off of the darker grey patina of the metal. There is vrtually no scarring of the cylinder scene. I wonder how much of its actual value has dropped?
I wonder what has caused this eccentricity of the cylinder? I know we had been discussing this. However, since someone mentioned that a centerless grinder was not available back the, which would have caused the pentalobal pattern, then that leaves one option. This is the stress of drilling of the chamber holes after finishing it off on the lathe.
I remember reading that the lathes and drills were powered by steam engines. An assortment of pulleys and belts would translate the power to the work station. This would of yielded comparatively slow and a variance in drilling speed. Remember that wrought iron is relatively soft. I think it is possible that under these conditions, IMHO metal can deform under the stress of drilling. If this is the case, I wonder if Colt decided to drill out the chambers first before finishing it off on the lathe?
Bob
I think the problem of the longitudinal scuff marks has devalued my Baby Dragoon. However, most of the damage has been due to the rubbing off of the darker grey patina of the metal. There is vrtually no scarring of the cylinder scene. I wonder how much of its actual value has dropped?
I wonder what has caused this eccentricity of the cylinder? I know we had been discussing this. However, since someone mentioned that a centerless grinder was not available back the, which would have caused the pentalobal pattern, then that leaves one option. This is the stress of drilling of the chamber holes after finishing it off on the lathe.
I remember reading that the lathes and drills were powered by steam engines. An assortment of pulleys and belts would translate the power to the work station. This would of yielded comparatively slow and a variance in drilling speed. Remember that wrought iron is relatively soft. I think it is possible that under these conditions, IMHO metal can deform under the stress of drilling. If this is the case, I wonder if Colt decided to drill out the chambers first before finishing it off on the lathe?
Bob
Last edited: