Author Topic: SAMCC Club gun plans (Read 20679 times)

Double D · « **on:** February 19, 2007, 04:17:32 AM »

You have seen pictures of the gun before. Its a brass gun about 11 inches long and 2 inches in diameter. This gun is .458 caliber.

Some of you have asked for plans for the gun. I am CAD/CAM illiterate so sorry no fancy drawings. I have autosketch 2.0 but gotta get some one to copy the 5.25 floppies to 3.5 diskettes so I can load it. So made the plans using Millwright 1.0 techniques and here they are.

No measurement is critical, +/- .005 is just fine. No radii defined, again Millwright 1.0 is used--- MIF (Make it fit) Put the radii in in steps and file to shape. Same with Cascabel knob, shape it with a file.

The club gun has the trunnions below the center line. It's better to put the them on center about 6 inches from the muzzle. The trunnions should be the same diameter or slightly larger than the bore. With this size barrel the bore should be no more 60 cal. Max depth determined by caliber.

Just click on the link below the picture and save to your hard drive. Later open a word document and insert the picture into a word document.

GGaskill · « **Reply #1 on:** February 28, 2007, 01:46:23 PM »

There is a discrepancy in a couple of the length dimensions at the muzzle. The distance from muzzle to back of the muzzle swell is shown as .585 (which seems correct) and the width of the flat on the swell is also shown as .585 (which is too long.)

Double D · « **Reply #2 on:** February 28, 2007, 04:18:49 PM »

Thanks George for spotting that. I am upgrading P&P ver.2.75 with the W/O ver1.0 module and will repost the drawing shorly.
The measurement in question is a MIF and FTF measurement anyway, so it's not critical. Just make it look right, .220 or so is just fine.

The drawing has now been up dated. So if you saved the two drawings above open Clubgunplan01.jpg again from above and save and overwrite the old version to your files.

GGaskill · « **Reply #3 on:** February 28, 2007, 04:52:02 PM »

I guesstimated .234".

Powder keg · « **Reply #4 on:** February 28, 2007, 05:31:38 PM »

Looks more like .228 to me?

Double D · « **Reply #5 on:** February 28, 2007, 06:21:56 PM »

Wes and George, I am left handed so when you measure you must use the correct declination. However both of your measurements are within spec for MiF/FtF.

GGaskill · « **Reply #6 on:** February 28, 2007, 08:31:46 PM »

The .234 is 40% of the .585 measurement. 40% was my guess. By the way, what is the trunnion diameter (seem a little small)?

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #7 on:** March 01, 2007, 03:17:13 AM »

Quote from: Double D on February 28, 2007, 06:21:56 PM

...
However both of your measurements are within spec for MiF/FtF.

Are you sure? Just where do you draw the line? It should be stated in the title block as a general note.

Double D · « **Reply #8 on:** March 01, 2007, 03:34:34 AM »

Ahem....

Quote from: Double D on February 19, 2007, 04:17:32 AM

...So made the plans using Millwright 1.0 techniques and here they are.

No measurement is critical, +/- .005 is just fine. No radii defined, again Millwright 1.0 is used--- MIF (Make it fit) Put the radii in in steps and file to shape. Same with Cascabel knob, shape it with a file....

Trunnions

Quote

The club gun has the trunnions below the center line. It's better to put the them on center about 6 inches from the muzzle. The trunnions should be the same diameter or slightly larger than the bore. With this size barrel the bore should be no more 60 cal. Max depth determined by caliber.

GGaskill · « **Reply #9 on:** March 01, 2007, 09:18:00 AM »

Are the corners of the various steps and bands rounded or square?

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #10 on:** March 01, 2007, 10:31:14 AM »

Quote from: GGaskill on March 01, 2007, 09:18:00 AM

Are the corners of the various steps and bands rounded or square?

YES, they are. (

Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Double D · « **Reply #11 on:** March 01, 2007, 04:48:00 PM »

Tim is exactly right.

It appears this cannons was made on a straight taper. Then the tool was run another .135 and the taper was resumed. Only backing the tool out to leave the reinforcing bands.

If you see a measurement that is is in conflict let me know. But if you see a demension not called out, MiF. Thats how the original were made before CAD/CAM and CNC.

Here is a drawing from Round Shot and Rammers of a British pattern Iron 32 PDR that is very similiar to this gun. I think some said that onece before.

If you notice, the muzzle flare is different than the muzzle flare on the club gun. The Club gun has had the muzzle flare made larger for aiming purposes. If I were to make this gun, I would be more inclined to make the profile more like the pattern gun but keep the larger diameter.

GGaskill · « **Reply #12 on:** March 01, 2007, 05:28:49 PM »

For those of you who prefer electronic drawings to pencil ones, the SAMCC Gun is online.

Double D · « **Reply #13 on:** March 03, 2007, 04:32:03 AM »

Thanks, George, looks good!

Double D · « **Reply #14 on:** March 15, 2007, 07:38:56 AM »

George are you able to modify the drawing above so the muzzle looks more like the muzzle of the 32 PDR from Round Shot and Rammers pictured above?

GGaskill · « **Reply #15 on:** March 15, 2007, 09:19:03 AM »

You mean with a broader radius, sharper corners and a smaller maximum diameter like this??

Double D · « **Reply #16 on:** March 15, 2007, 06:00:31 PM »

Yep, that looks good. Thanks George!!

Double D · « **Reply #17 on:** November 10, 2007, 07:38:19 AM »

I have pulled the truck apart and scanned it in with measurements. Same format as earlier. Pictures up loaded from my hard drive. Click for full size.

Double D · « **Reply #18 on:** November 10, 2007, 08:16:25 AM »

This axle is broken. I drew the broken part in.

GGaskill · « **Reply #19 on:** November 11, 2007, 07:40:09 AM »

The above two pix are of the same piece?

Also, about the wheels--what are the depths of the webs? Are the inner rings and outer rings the same thickness (.590")?

Double D · « **Reply #20 on:** November 11, 2007, 08:03:03 AM »

The depth of the depth on the recess of teh wheels is .200 each side. Inner ring and outer rings thickness .590 for both.

Both pictures are of the front axle. I only penciled in the broken section on the lower picture. It should be there for both or on one drawing with both verticle. and horizontal demensions.

.

GGaskill · « **Reply #21 on:** November 11, 2007, 09:29:36 AM »

Rear axle next? Hardware?

Double D · « **Reply #22 on:** November 11, 2007, 04:18:51 PM »

Quote from: GGaskill on November 11, 2007, 09:29:36 AM

Rear axle next? Hardware?

Rear Axle and transon coming, maybe tonight. I have to figure out hw show the draft.

I have been struggling with some parts on the rear axle and their function. I finally figured it out it is remanents of an old base for the sliding wedge system and does nothing know and is missing parts. I am going to leave those out.

Hardware. This thing is asembled with a bunch of brass cross rods with the ends threaded. I will go back to the cheek and axle drawing and separately locate the through holes for them.

The elevator transom is made of a strip of brass with a nut soldered on the under side. I'll get demensions for that.

The only other hard ware is the Trunnion caps and axle brace and they will have to be MTF.

GGaskill · « **Reply #23 on:** November 12, 2007, 02:42:28 PM »

OK, I have started drawing this but have run into a number of inconsistencies on the cheek dimensions. Particularly the steps--the lengths from the left and the heights at the left do not make sense and do not plot the same shape as the photograph. The 7/16 measurement has to be incorrect.

Double D · « **Reply #24 on:** November 12, 2007, 04:01:43 PM »

George,
None of these measurments are critical, but you right that one is a bit far off. It is 7/8. I corrected my drawing above saoas to not leave a landmine for posterity.

GGaskill · « **Reply #25 on:** November 12, 2007, 08:46:18 PM »

None of these measurements are critical . . .

I know, but people will want to build it the way it is. By the way, is the breech end of the truck wider than the muzzle end?

Double D · « **Reply #26 on:** November 13, 2007, 06:31:43 AM »

Correction. the OAL of the axle is 5 3/4 not 6 3/4 long and 5/8 inch thick not 1 5/8. Sketches changed accordingly.

As to front to rear draft--yes the rear is wider than the front. I'll cover that in the assembly pictures.

GGaskill · « **Reply #27 on:** November 13, 2007, 07:36:47 AM »

... the rear is wider than the front.

It has to do with the notches in the axles being at a slight angle off 90°.

Don't forget to locate and size the holes in the cheek.

Double D · « **Reply #28 on:** November 15, 2007, 03:58:38 AM »

I still have the transom to add and that with the elevator deck determines the angles of the cheeks. The Notches get filed to fit. for the angle created by those---thats how this made.

I'll get the cross bolts located also.

Nothing more wil be done on this until Monday evening.

GGaskill · « **Reply #29 on:** November 20, 2007, 07:32:43 PM »

Here are electronic plans of the wheels and front axle and the cheek.