Author Topic: New HandGonne Project (Read 3081 times)

kappullen · « **on:** April 03, 2008, 09:01:16 AM »

Hey guys,

I haven't been around here for a while doing some commercial machine work.

A fellow here emailed and asked if I could make a Tannanberg Gonne.

That's something I haven't done so decided to take a break from real work, and try it.

First problem was my indexer, and tailstocks were different heights.

That required making a shim for the tailstock.

Next problem was the limit switch on the z axis failed.

I had to disassemble the Bridgeport cnc head to get the spindle loose (when it jammed at the top).

Also got a couple new switches from MSC to put in.

I only have a piece of 1" bronze bar so scaled the gonne two thirds full size.

Here is one of the early cuts in the project.

Finishing up the project.

The nearly finished gonne. Still need the touch hole, and a pole.

The old Bridgeport leaves steps where the "stepper motors"
step in to generate the tapers.

My new FADAL would make it smoothe as a baby's "butt".

I like to keep familiar with both controls on both machines.

Enjoy,

Kap

gulfcoastblackpowder · « **Reply #1 on:** April 03, 2008, 09:28:29 AM »

Looks great! What alloy did you use?

I'm the one that inquired about it, BTW. I'm still interested in one if you're interested in machining one for me (preferably in full scale). I wouldn't need the pole, as that would be difficult/more costly to ship, and I have a friend that is interested in turning a pole for me.

GGaskill · « **Reply #2 on:** April 03, 2008, 09:40:29 AM »

The old Bridgeport leaves steps where the "stepper motors"
step in to generate the tapers.

But I'll bet it required less draw filing to clean up than the couple steel ones I made did.

By the way, did you do the same taper for all courses or different ones?

KABAR2 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 04, 2008, 01:39:27 PM »

kappullen,

I have always liked that style tapered Octagon Gonne.

You've turned out an elegant shoot'n iron there!

Allen <><

kappullen · « **Reply #4 on:** April 09, 2008, 01:47:23 AM »

Sorry,

I can't get much computer time anymore.

Kbar,

Thanks for your comments.

Golfcoast,

That is an unknown hard bronze, or copper alloy.
I have made over the past week, a hot rolled, probably 1018 one.
The size difference between the 2/3 and 1/1 piece is amazing.

Going to the metal store to get some known material today.

We can work something out.

George,

I used a drawing from a website Golfcoast sent me to on a website.
Yours look good, but a lot of work if done manually with different tapers.
I took the sander to the steel one to finish it off..

The gonne probably should be decorated with a ball peen hammer to look like blacksmith work.

Here's another job in the works for a man on another site. They are disc wheels for a miniature locomotive.

Kap

Victor3 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 09, 2008, 03:07:42 AM »

Those are beauties

I see that on the steel one you were using a 'corn cob' (roughing) end mill. Might look good just to leave the as-machined finish with that cutter and as you suggested, add some peening to it. that would make for a nice old-timey looking finish.

Now... Can you scale me up one of them things with a golf ball bore?

KABAR2 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 09, 2008, 06:38:19 AM »

kappullen,

I see by the book we both have an interest in Spanish arms

and having the book gives me an idea of the scale.... I don't have any Old bay........

Again nice work, When I have time I will have to try my hand at one of those!

Allen <><

gulfcoastblackpowder · « **Reply #7 on:** April 09, 2008, 11:02:06 AM »

For anyone that's interested, the site I sent to Kap was Ulrich Bretscher's: http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/handgonne.html

That steel one looks real nice. I don't have the book or the seasoning, but I do have the dimensions, and yes, it really does make a huge difference going to full scale. The 2/3 scale, though, could be combined with a blade - i.e. mounted on a halberd - and would be pretty cool.

I know the version that The Rifle Shoppe makes is also machined, and they use a single .62 bore (not pictured - 793BOB): http://www.therifleshoppe.com/hand_gonnes.htm.

Kap - What bore size are you using, and did you use the reduced powder chamber as in the schematic, or a single bore?

I'd love to see an aged look like the one on Ulrich's site!

GGaskill · « **Reply #8 on:** April 09, 2008, 08:23:52 PM »

There are a number of dimensions missing from Ulrich's drawing. How did you resolve them?

gulfcoastblackpowder · « **Reply #9 on:** April 10, 2008, 11:48:45 AM »

To answer my own question, Kap is using a single bore, though I don't know what size yet. I believe he enlarged the drawing to full scale, so any dimension that needed to be resolved could either be measured directly or eye balled.

Now the hard part is deciding which material to have it made of.

I really like the look and sound of the bronze (especially aged like the one on Ulrich's site), and I'd love to have a bronze barrel in my collection, but I also like the safety and cost of steel. If anyone has suggestions on achieving the look of bronze in a durable fashion (as durable as bluing), I'm all ears.

Tropico · « **Reply #10 on:** April 10, 2008, 01:01:37 PM »

Quote

Now the hard part is deciding which material to have it made of.

I really like the look and sound of the bronze (especially aged like the one on Ulrich's site), and I'd love to have a bronze barrel in my collection, but I also like the safety and cost of steel.

For that small of a piece., I'd get the bronze anyway., or save a little longer till you can, the little longer it takes to get what you really want is nothing compared to the lifetime of unhappiness with the finished product. Nothing is going to look or sound like Bronze ., except bronze itself. And Bronze is a safe and durable metal for a gonne., no doubt about it. Go for the gold man !

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #11 on:** April 10, 2008, 01:12:02 PM »

Bronze with a seamless liner?

OR Bronze with a bored liner of (... steel).

Tropico · « **Reply #12 on:** April 10, 2008, 02:33:35 PM »

Does it need to have a liner? it is a .62 caliber I believe.
My Buss is .75 caliber and without a liner it does very well.
I can fire .80 cents out of it in dimes with no ill effects. Thats at least a gonne.

If its at least one caliber thick I am not sure that in peacetime he would shoot it enough to wear it out?

gulfcoastblackpowder · « **Reply #13 on:** April 10, 2008, 04:42:02 PM »

Nice Buss you've got there. Any thoughts on 660 vs. Aluminum or Silicon Bronze? There's a significant difference in cost. What alloy are most of the brass Blunderbuss barrels made of? A handgonne is not much different in ballistics, I'd think.

Tropico · « **Reply #14 on:** April 10, 2008, 05:16:58 PM »

I cant answer that stuff., those are questions for the mods and GGaskil. I would think the ballistics are pretty close tho from Buss to gonne. Personally my gonne is .50 cal and made from a piece of 1.5" 660 I got it from a fello named Bookie., I am really happy with it. ., also I have a beer can mortar of 660 from a board member here ., and a Canadian Cannons swivel cannon also of 660., I am no machinist., but the guys that made this stuff for me are., and they seem to choose the 660.

GGaskill · « **Reply #15 on:** April 10, 2008, 07:21:00 PM »

Now... Can you scale me up one of them things with a golf ball bore?

Scaled up to golf balls, it would be 33" long and more than 4" across the flats. It would make a good wall gun but kinda way heavy for a pole gun.

This link is a drawing scaled for golfballs; it is 16.5" long and about 2.85" across the octagonal corners (make from 3" stock.) The powder chamber is .75" diameter by 2" long; the bore is 6 calibers (10.5").

dan610324 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 13, 2008, 10:29:57 AM »

I checked that drawing , for me it look extremely thin in material thickness .
what I found out from reading old documents about bronze cannon proportions , they should have an thickness of minimum one caliber in chamber area , or preferably a little more .

the thinnest area before the bell shape in the muzzle should minimum be half the caliber , or preferably a little more .

bore length should be between 18 and 26 calibers long depending on what purpose of the gun .

thats from an document dated 1708 .

for me personally I can say that I would never fire anything with that thin walls in the barrel .
ok todays casting methods and material quality is probably much better , but so are the blackpowder also .
but today we doesnt have ventholes the size that you can put your thumb in it .

well thats just my opinion
better safe then sorry

gulfcoastblackpowder · « **Reply #17 on:** April 13, 2008, 10:55:47 AM »

Dan - I fully appreciate what you're saying, but the rule you refer to is for cannon, not handgonne, which were closer to pistols than cannon. The ballistics are a bit different on small calibers, and part of the safety was in having a reduced bore powder chamber. By using a single bore that is reduced from the original (I'm thinking .50 or .58 cal, on modern materials and manufacturing methods, that factor of safety is still there (at the breech, the overall width is near 1.5 in).

dan610324 · « **Reply #18 on:** April 13, 2008, 11:16:54 AM »

ok , hope you know what you are talking about , I dont

but I think it looks extremely thin on that drawing .
I have had a lot of original pepperboxes and doubble barreled antique gunswhen I was collecting , but still I would say that they had thicker material in the barrels , ok maybe not as thick as half the caliber in the muzzle area , but very close to it .

dan610324 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 13, 2008, 11:22:29 AM »

KAPPULLEN

what book is it you got in the background at your photos , and where can I find it

I WANT IT

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #20 on:** April 13, 2008, 12:02:11 PM »

Quote from: dan610324 on April 13, 2008, 10:29:57 AM

....

well thats just my opinion
better safe then sorry

And if I'm shooting NEXT to you that makes me feel safer too.

gulfcoastblackpowder · « **Reply #21 on:** April 13, 2008, 01:48:05 PM »

A lot of smooth bores I've seen have wall thicknesses significantly less than 1/2 the bores, and the bores often are anywhere from .58-.75. I don't know all the details on these, but they have a proven track record (admittedly not with bronze, which is the predominant part of my concern in material selection.

For more consideration of the wall thickness at the muzzle:
The drawing is nondescript on the thickness of the bell, but I'll assume it to be twice the overall thickness of the wall before it (Kap could better clarify what he resolved that dimension to).
Given the bore 17mm = ~.66cal
The minimum wall thickness would then be: (33-17)/4=4mm or, if divided by .254, ~.157", which indeed is smaller than I'd be willing to fire.

If instead we use .50 cal (12.7mm):
(33-12.7)/4= 5.075 mm or ~.2"

Still may not be to your satisfaction, but I know what loads other people with the same design have been able to fire (using steel), and I have no intention of ever going that heavy.

The biggest concern to me is the strength of the bronze, not the geometry, but again, safety is of top priority to me as well, which is why I've been putting so much thought into it.

dan610324 · « **Reply #22 on:** April 14, 2008, 05:12:51 AM »

but its pistols made of copper alloys Im talking about

well now when you changed the cal to ,50" and the wall thickness to ,2" then you start coming close to the half caliber in wall thickness . ok I know that half caliber is for cannons , but I still believe its better to be safe then sorry .

or you make an example only for proof testing , load it with double maximum charge of powder and 2 lead balls , testfire with an long fuse and an safe shelter , if it doesnt explode then you could use that design . but be sure to cut down the sample used for the test , it could be full of tiny cracks , maybe not safe to shoot the second time , or have it x-rayed for cracks .

I know Im a bit tooooo much when it comes to safety , but one of my best friends was killed by an exploading cannon many years ago . I should have been there also at the test firing , but as usual I was to late

that probably saved my life that time

but if we talk about wrought iron barrels , I have been shooting with flintlock pistols that had an +3/4" bore and -1/8" wall thickness near the muzzle , but today I would probably never shoot one of those again , at least not with full loads .

KABAR2 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 14, 2008, 06:43:01 AM »

Quote from: dan610324 on April 13, 2008, 11:22:29 AM

KAPPULLEN

what book is it you got in the background at your photos , and where can I find it

I WANT IT

The book he is using is "Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America" by Brinkerhoff and Chamberlain. it has a good section on Spanish
artillery, but also cover swords, pole arms, bayonets muskets, pistols and accouterments hope that helps.

Allen <><

dan610324 · « **Reply #24 on:** April 14, 2008, 07:15:16 AM »

do you got any idea where I can find it ??

KABAR2 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 14, 2008, 08:38:45 AM »

dan610324

I am at work when I get home I will pull the book out and get the Library of Congress number and the publisher, it's
possible it is still in print or someone still has copies of it.

Allen <><

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #26 on:** April 14, 2008, 08:58:49 AM »

Dan and KABAR2, Unfortunately this book is not in print and none of our 6 favorite military and gun booksellers have it. You can get it from Amazon Books, but the price is very steep. They have 3 copies starting at 1,163 Swedish Kronors. Maybe you will have better luck with an Internet search than we did. Good luck! It looks like a great book, but at 195 dollars, US, it's too much for us.

Regards,

Mike and Tracy

kappullen · « **Reply #27 on:** April 14, 2008, 10:06:55 AM »

Yes,

That's a Spanish arms book.

I lent out a swivel gun some years ago, and got that book back.

Pissed me off at the time, but maybe I got the better end of the bargain.

Cannon have a way of disappearing.

I won't lend them, or leave one without a chain.

Here's a couple more. The right one is finished up with a hog mill like Victor suggested.
These need to be cut off and bored for the shaft.

This is a British cannon book!

The gun on the left (in the picture) is 12 sided like the gonne is eight.
That will be fun for a next project (experiment).

George,

I didn't find any missing dimensions on that plan.

Is 660 adequate for this gun with a bore thickness of metal in the chamber area?
Does it need a liner with commercial wrought material.

I remember Calamity Jane made a 660 bronze gun without a liner some years ago.

These are milled from 1.75 inch 1020 so have a wall thickness of over 1/2" with 1/2" bore.

I'm getting a cnc lathe soon, and to ease the pain of the purchase, will be selling a couple of
guns in the near future.

One Swivel gun, three Dahlgren Howitzers and a mortar or so will be on the block.
Tropico has dibs on the swivel if still interested.

If no one here is interested they will go to the Antique Cannon Superstore.

I can just imagine mortars, ball molds, and cannon popping out of that machine like pop corn.

Sorry, I can't get on here much.

I have a couple more of these too.

Kap

EL Caz 66 · « **Reply #28 on:** April 14, 2008, 11:16:16 AM »

KAP,

PM sent..

Ed

Double D · « **Reply #29 on:** April 14, 2008, 01:06:55 PM »

Should you be looking for a copy of a book out of print or otherwise the first place you should look is
www.abebooks.com.

Here is the hit list for Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America:

SPANISH MILITARY WEAPONS IN COLONIAL AMERICA 1700-1821 (ISBN: 0811715841)
Brinckerhoff, Sidney B. & Pierce A. Chamberlain
Bookseller: Fritz T. Brown - Books
(Newburyport, MA, U.S.A.)
Bookseller Rating:
Price: US$ 195.00
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within U.S.A.:
US$ 4.00
[Rates & Speeds]

Book Description: Stackpole Books, 1972. Hardcover. Book Condition: Good. Dust Jacket Condition: Fair. 1st Edition. Good+ tight condition with slight wear to top/bottom of spine and cover edges. Dust jacket is fair with approx. one inch missing from front. Bookseller Inventory # 02156

2. Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America, 1700-1821 (ISBN: 0811715841)
Brinckerhoff, Sidney B.; Chamberlain, Pierce A.
Bookseller: Friends of the Johnson County Library
(Merriam, KS, U.S.A.)
Bookseller Rating:
Price: US$ 195.95
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within U.S.A.:
US$ 3.00
[Rates & Speeds]

Book Description: Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., 1972. Hard Cover. Book Condition: Very Good. Dust Jacket Condition: Good. 4to - over 9¾" - 12" tall. Very clean unmarked book. Edges a bit dust marked. Dust jacket shows some shelf wear. Purchase of this item will help support the programs and collections of the Johnson County (Kansas) Library. Bookseller Inventory # 10303

3. Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America, 1700-1821 (ISBN: 0811715841)
Brinckerhoff, Sidney B.; Chamberlain, Pierce A.
Bookseller: E.N. Treverton
(Asheville, NC, U.S.A.)
Bookseller Rating:
Price: US$ 220.00
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within U.S.A.:
US$ 4.00
[Rates & Speeds]

Book Description: Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., 1972. hardcover. First edition. The definitive study of Spanish arms and armaments. 159pp. 274 plates. Tear to top of spine o/w fine in very good dust jacket. Bookseller Inventory # 9573

4. Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America, 1700-1821 (ISBN: 0811715841)
Brinckerhoff, Sidney B.; Chamberlain, Pierce A.
Bookseller: Book Peddler
(Jersey, ., United Kingdom)
Bookseller Rating:
Price: US$ 253.29
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within United Kingdom:
US$ 6.59
[Rates & Speeds]

Book Description: Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., 1972. Book Condition: Very Good. Dust Jacket Condition: Very Good. Near fine dustwrapper in protective plastic cover. Slight wear to part of top of rear red board - dustwrapper unaffected. No inscriptions. Internally clean. A very decent copy. Bookseller Inventory # 000217