Author Topic: Need this for next project..... (Read 1360 times)

centermass · « **on:** May 15, 2010, 04:31:19 PM »

I am looking for a barrel with these spec's..
rolled steel stock or welded..
36" long
bored 30" deep
3" dia
1 1/4 bore
7/8" trunnions
nepoleon or howitzer style...

Any good places to check let me know.....Thanks Dominick!!!

dan610324 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 15, 2010, 05:13:10 PM »

1 1/4 bore diameter and 30" deep
that will give you a 24 cal deep bore , thats proportions that was used in the 17th century
200 years earlier , dont think a napoleon got more than 12 - 15 cal bore depth
most howies just got 5 - 6 cal bore depth

with a 1 1/4 bore the outer diameter should be 3 3/4 to be considered as safe to use without a sub sized chamber . but with a sub sized chamber we are back at the howies and their proportions

a napoleon style barrel with a 1 1/4 bore should have a trunnion diameter of 1 1/4"
they should protrude the same length

so what are you really looking for ??

centermass · « **Reply #2 on:** May 15, 2010, 05:29:00 PM »

My last cannon project was as pictured......26" long bored 20" deep and 3" dia... 1 1/4" bore. I proofed it with 6 oz of FFG powder and completely obstructed the barrel with everything I could force in it.....It took the charge with no problems........ I am building my next project just abit bigger....The spec's I am looking for is not a period correct cannon, just somthing to play with and enjoy.....You should consider that everyone on this forum is not a engineer or a cannon master like you appear to be...I just want a barrel like I posted..

dan610324 · « **Reply #3 on:** May 15, 2010, 05:31:50 PM »

GGaskill · « **Reply #4 on:** May 15, 2010, 06:23:47 PM »

You are asking someone to make you something that doesn't meet the safety recommendations of the forum (chamber walls same thickness as bore diameter.) You may not get any takers.

centermass · « **Reply #5 on:** May 15, 2010, 07:09:08 PM »

I have read a lot about that consideration...the barrel I used before did not meet that either but I never got any negitive comments about it...I appreciate the advice here, if some one can build me what I need that is great!..if not then I will try another place....Thanks...

Double D · « **Reply #6 on:** May 15, 2010, 07:29:59 PM »

Quote from: centermass on May 15, 2010, 05:29:00 PM

...You should consider that everyone on this forum is not a engineer or a cannon master like you appear to be...

We know this, that's why we offer our experience and knowledge, that what this forum is about.

Well first of all 1 1/4" bore in a 3 inch diameter doesn't meet basic safety guidelines. Maximum safe bore size for 3 inch steel barrel is 1 inch. 1 1/4 inch bore, minimum safe barrel diameter is 2 3/4" as Dan said. Why would you want to ignore safety standards?

Where did you get that "proof load"? I am unaware of any such proof loads. . The fact that your barrel did not fail is meaningless. Proof loads are carefully calculated. They are not designed to produce catastrophic failure, but to produce indicators of unsuitability. The standard process after firing a proof load is to gauge and measure the gun to determine if dimensional place took place and did those change exceed safe standards.

Why the short bore?

Why the small Trunnions?

We will be most glad to help you build or find someone to build. But there is so much about your criteria that is wrong, but only a lintel wrong and easily adjusted.

Double D · « **Reply #7 on:** May 15, 2010, 07:50:43 PM »

Quote from: centermass on May 15, 2010, 07:09:08 PM

I have read a lot about that consideration...the barrel I used before did not meet that either but I never got any negitive comments about it...I appreciate the advice here, if some one can build me what I need that is great!..if not then I will try another place....Thanks...

I see that now. Your original post only mentioned bore diameter, not OD. It was later after you were well into the build before you mentioned the OD. It got by all of us and that includes you.

You didn't do your home work before you built. Don't blame us. You are the builder, if you built it wrong and it fails in the future you are responsible. You can probably find one of our sponsors to build you a gun, but they will build it to safety standards.

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #8 on:** May 16, 2010, 03:41:48 AM »

Quote from: centermass on May 15, 2010, 07:09:08 PM

I have read a lot about that consideration...the barrel I used before did not meet that either but I never got any negitive comments about it...I appreciate the advice here, if some one can build me what I need that is great!..if not then I will try another place....Thanks...

There are a few of us that participate on this board that are engineers. There are two or three of us that participate on this board that have SEEN cannons explode. It will happen when improperly LOADED. It will happen because of improper DESIGN or MATERIALS. That is why you will find us here using the rules of thumb of the larger organizations (such as NSS-A and AAA) that have put together from years of experience design rules and procedutes that have proven to be safe. When you light the fuse you need to KNOW: is it a cannon, or is it a bomb?

dan610324 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 16, 2010, 04:42:01 AM »

let him continue , he already decided what he wants .
we will probably soon read about him in the statistics

centermass · « **Reply #10 on:** May 16, 2010, 06:50:52 AM »

Hmm....I think this is my last post here.......Every time someone decides to build a project that dosn't meet some one elses safey standards then that person is wrong. I don't think the 1700's standard applys here anymore and I sure as hell don't think that you know everything about bore vs dia times mass =mc sq....guess my building isn't good enough for you.....I think it looks pretty damn good for a garage built cannon from plans I found just reading on the net. I have already been told about the moderator here and some of the others on the forum. Thanks for your sarcasum and smart comments...................

Zulu · « **Reply #11 on:** May 16, 2010, 06:53:53 AM »

We'll miss you

grymster · « **Reply #12 on:** May 16, 2010, 06:55:30 AM »

Quote from: centermass on May 16, 2010, 06:50:52 AM

Hmm....I think this is my last post here.......Every time someone decides to build a project that dosn't meet some one elses safey standards then that person is wrong. I don't think the 1700's standard applys here anymore and I sure as hell don't think that you know everything about bore vs dia times mass =mc sq....guess my building isn't good enough for you.....I think it looks pretty damn good for a garage built cannon from plans I found just reading on the net. I have already been told about the moderator here and some of the others on the forum. Thanks for your sarcasum and smart comments...................

You might try reading the sigline of a guy who calls himself centermass!

Double D · « **Reply #13 on:** May 16, 2010, 07:44:21 AM »

Quote from: centermass on May 16, 2010, 06:50:52 AM

Hmm....I think this is my last post here.......Every time someone decides to build a project that dosn't meet some one elses safey standards then that person is wrong. I don't think the 1700's standard applys here anymore and I sure as hell don't think that you know everything about bore vs dia times mass =mc sq....guess my building isn't good enough for you.....I think it looks pretty damn good for a garage built cannon from plans I found just reading on the net. I have already been told about the moderator here and some of the others on the forum. Thanks for your sarcasum and smart comments...................

Your attitude certainly doesn't convey to us someone who wishes to learn or someone who has any special cannon making knowledge. You have failed to demonstrate any knowledge of safety standards, nor do you cite any safety standards to which your gun is built to rebut our position.

The safety standards we endorse and follow on this forum are those of the North-South Skirmish Association and the American Artillery Association. These are the current modern standards applied now, for the construction on muzzleloading artillery. If you had read them you would know that.

Whose standards or expertise are you following? Please, share with us any other credible source you have. We are always interested in new ideas and are willing to learn

You have told us nothing about what your gun is constructed from or how it was constructed. We can look at what you have built and read what you type and see your limited experience.

We certainly hope this isn't your last post. If you leave here that is your business and your loss. If you don't like the moderator here, that is understandable. He is a relentless nag about safety and making this board usable to everyone.

Bottom line, if you are offended by us telling you, your cannon does not meet minumum safety standards, I am sorry. Your feelings come after safety. Should that gun fail some time in the future, this series of posts also puts it on record that we did not give you advice on how to build this gun and we warned you that it was not built to standards.

Our unofficial motto here is, "don't build it for how you will use it, build for how the next guy will use it.

BoomLover · « **Reply #14 on:** May 16, 2010, 08:14:14 AM »

The people that stay with this forum are here because they know that they don't know it all, and are willing to listen and learn. I personally read and participated for about a year before I decided to try to build anything. Just because it doesn't blow up when you way overload the barrel doesn't mean it is safe to use from that point on! Stress cracks may have started to develop, and like Cat said, some people on here have seen cannons blow up. Sorry, Centermass, your attitude defeated you right from the start, however, if you decide to join with folks that are interested in safety first, then looks and performance second, come back and join us. I still consider myself a "newbie" and won't be really comfortable until I have built and fired at least a few more! Hope you will be back to read and learn, and that we won't read about you as a statistic! BoomLover

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #15 on:** May 16, 2010, 08:17:56 AM »

It's a good lookin' cannon.

But I will risk offending anyone when it comes to safety. I HAVE seen from 5 yards away a cannon explode.

It is not the fact that a given tube can withstand a large proof load. It is how it withstands reapeated hammerings over the years. Welded tubing (not seamless) will, over time, weaken. Bad design is a trap. Metal that becomes brittle (regardless of strength) will crack.

centermass · « **Reply #16 on:** May 16, 2010, 02:59:07 PM »

Well ok......The barrel was turned from cold rolled steel stock by a professional machinest to my specs. I never thought about the proof firing doing that to a barrel..That was a point I took from Dominick who I get parts from for my projects....I just don't build these things and let go at it, I am very safe when firing and never let anyone with in 20 yrds of it period. The trail I built to take a barrel twice the size just to be sure. The green cannon on my avatar is my first project. It was built from oil field pipe, took me weeks to get it right. I am not to ignorant not to learn, just got my hair up with one of the reply posts. Sorry and I will keep learning before I start building on the next one...I am keeping it for myself. Thanks.

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #17 on:** May 16, 2010, 03:04:56 PM »

centermass --

good comeback! It takes courage to have one's work examined in public.

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #18 on:** May 16, 2010, 03:40:16 PM »

CRS is generally 1018. Good choice. It is one of the better steels to use for cannon barrels. "Mild steels or low-carbon steels" were developed in the 1870's or so. They REVOLUTIONIZED the cannon making industry - switching from cast (iron, bronze ...) to a material that would withstand the pressure and repeated firings. It is still a very good choice. I have a number of mortars in 4140 - which presents some real issues when trying to weld.

dan610324 · « **Reply #19 on:** May 16, 2010, 10:25:05 PM »

thanks for changing your mind centermass
none of the people here at the board is here to be a pain in the a.. at you
its a nice hobby , but can be very dangerous if its not taken seriously
20 yard is good but not enough if something happens , as an example the boy who was killed a few years ago was in approximately 30 yards distance from the exploading barrel .
or if it was his mother who was seriously injured who was at that distance, dont remember exact now .
but both of them was at a "safe" distance from the barrel when it was fired .
please search here for accidents and you will find some interesting info .
your barrel can probably take the stress from repeted firing for a very long time , but it might burst sometime
maybe not in your lifetime , but Im sure that you dont want your son to kill himself and his family long after you are gone either
so please follow the safety rules and you will know that you have done everything that you could do .
the 1:1 ratio is a minimum for a safe cannon and should always been followed .
a good cannon will be used for generations and you never know what the next owner will do with it
ok you cant build away stupidity and ignorance but at least you know that you have done all you can to make it as safe as possible
Im not an expert in this, Im here to learn from other peoples experiance and I promise that there is is tons of experiance here
black powder is not in any way similar with smokeless powder so you dont get any better performance from a longer barrel, , bp explodes with an extreme pressure peak in the beginning and the pressure falls rapidly after that . people realised that very early and start to shorten the the barrel lengths from the early 30 cal length barrels to the cw eras 12 cal lengths barrels and still had the same performance
ok back when they had the very long barrels the also used the serpentine powder that wasnt as effective as todays granulated powder
but Im truely happy that you decide to stay here with us , because we got to do as much as we can to avoid accidents .
if not you could get the same problem over there as we got here in sweden , its totally illegal to fire projectiles here .

BoomLover · « **Reply #20 on:** May 16, 2010, 11:35:14 PM »

Centermass...welcome ...and welcome back! Really glad to have you here 'cause this is the place to learn from some of the best

on the subjects of Cannons, Mortars and Howitzers. The 1:1 ratio is sides equal to the size of bore, for a 1" bore, the sides must be 1" thick. Only way around that is to build a powder chamber, and it still has to have that same ratio. You are ahead of the game, as you have already been building, but now, you can push your envelope by studying on better, safer ways to enjoy this hobby! I can say this.....we also like to see the fire and smoke pics, even tho I am still having trouble posting pics.....just a computer illiterate, I guess! BoomLover

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #21 on:** May 17, 2010, 01:42:41 AM »

I'm going to stir the pot a little.

We all know of (or HAVE - as I do) a cannon or two that does not meet the 1:1 rule for wall thickness.

On alternative is to sleeve the area around the fuse-hole/powder-chamber to increase the diameter and strength.

Is there another alternative? (I assume that going deeper with a reduced diameter powder chamber is not.)

Could one calculate the 'normal' max charge from Switlik's volume of knowledge and then a) reduce it to what would be a safe level and b) mark the barrel

?

One obviously could. The question is, would that be sufficient?

JeffG · « **Reply #22 on:** May 17, 2010, 03:40:23 AM »

Quote

The question is, would that be sufficient?

I guess you never know, until it isn't...

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #23 on:** May 17, 2010, 05:18:15 AM »

Good point. But some shootin' irons are marked "blackpowder only".

There is at least a precidence of the manufacturer's intended use.

Is there precidence for marking the maximum or recommended charge?

GGaskill · « **Reply #24 on:** May 17, 2010, 05:20:00 PM »

You would also have to mark it with the maximum shot weight.

dan610324 · « **Reply #25 on:** May 17, 2010, 08:29:08 PM »

with all those markings it will start looking like a ruger

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #26 on:** May 18, 2010, 12:49:17 AM »

Quote from: dan610324 on May 17, 2010, 08:29:08 PM

with all those markings it will start looking like a ruger

Funny, that's exactly what I was thinking when I posted it.

Victor3 · « **Reply #27 on:** May 18, 2010, 02:45:57 AM »

Quote from: Cat Whisperer on May 17, 2010, 01:42:41 AM

I'm going to stir the pot a little.

We all know of (or HAVE - as I do) a cannon or two that does not meet the 1:1 rule for wall thickness.

Could one calculate the 'normal' max charge from Switlik's volume of knowledge and then a) reduce it to what would be a safe level and b) mark the barrel ?

One obviously could. The question is, would that be sufficient?

Dom posted a formula concerning this a while back. I saved the info but can't seem to find it right now.

smokemjoe · « **Reply #28 on:** May 18, 2010, 04:46:35 AM »

Centermass: I had my own ideas about making this BB Mortar and these fellows here are helping me out the most, It cost me more cash, and extra wt. to lug around but when I lite the fuse I know it will not blow up and hurt anyone else. Thanks you all. Joe

dominick · « **Reply #29 on:** May 22, 2010, 04:12:24 PM »

Quote from: Victor3 on May 18, 2010, 02:45:57 AM

Quote from: Cat Whisperer on May 17, 2010, 01:42:41 AM
I'm going to stir the pot a little.

We all know of (or HAVE - as I do) a cannon or two that does not meet the 1:1 rule for wall thickness.

Could one calculate the 'normal' max charge from Switlik's volume of knowledge and then a) reduce it to what would be a safe level and b) mark the barrel ?

One obviously could. The question is, would that be sufficient?

Dom posted a formula concerning this a while back. I saved the info but can't seem to find it right now.

Victor, Here's The link. http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,134586.0.html