Author Topic: Preponderance forward? (Read 5023 times)

JeffG · « **on:** July 13, 2010, 05:11:31 AM »

The weight preponderance of my HMR howitzer is forward, left to it's own devices, it points down! .... how would you suggest that I make an elevation adjustment for it? I could put a ring and screw around the cascabel, but.... I don't want to put a quoin or wedge in front... Thanks for the help in advance!

Zulu · « **Reply #1 on:** July 13, 2010, 05:21:38 AM »

JeffG,
I don't know how much you would have to use but you could use two sided tape and stick some sheet lead under the rear of the barrel. You wouldn't have to look at it then.
Zulu

Double D · « **Reply #2 on:** July 13, 2010, 06:37:35 AM »

Along the same thought line as Zulu, got to a Tires shop and get some stick on wheel weights.

Do you know why it is muzzle heavy?

Artilleryman · « **Reply #3 on:** July 13, 2010, 07:15:42 AM »

Probably trunnions located too close to the breech, assuming that bore diameters and outside diameters are correct.. Another possible solution is to shim the trunnion cap squares to increase the friction on the trunnions.

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #4 on:** July 13, 2010, 08:10:48 AM »

Jeff, I see Artilleryman beat me to it. If you have sturdy capsquares, you can do as he says. We do this by shimming with a piece of tough leather, about as thick as holster leather, that covers three-quarters of the exposed trunnion and draw up the cap square bolts tight. It works on a two hundred pound tube; it should work on your's too!

Good luck,

Mike and Tracy

JeffG · « **Reply #5 on:** July 13, 2010, 09:58:58 AM »

Ok, thanks, guys....when I get that far on my carriage, I will let you know...

Cannoneer · « **Reply #6 on:** July 13, 2010, 06:01:04 PM »

Quote from: JeffG on July 13, 2010, 05:11:31 AM

I could put a ring and screw around the cascabel...

Jeff,
That's what I would do: it would be a permanent fix, and that would be similar to how real British field guns had elevation screws attached to integral cast loops under the cascabels for nearly a hundred years. In this case the ring around the cascabel neck would be like some swivel guns tiller attachments.

British light 6-pounder on a reproduction carriage.

Zulu · « **Reply #7 on:** July 13, 2010, 06:09:35 PM »

BoomJ,
Great idea!
Zulu

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #8 on:** July 13, 2010, 06:14:15 PM »

OR you could just bore it out to the next bigger size!

JeffG · « **Reply #9 on:** July 14, 2010, 03:12:56 AM »

BoomJ you are right on! That is what I am going to do!!

Quote

OR you could just bore it out to the next bigger size!

But I "gots" all these Fox balls!!

Zulu · « **Reply #10 on:** July 14, 2010, 03:52:16 AM »

Quote from: Cat Whisperer on July 13, 2010, 06:14:15 PM

OR you could just bore it out to the next bigger size!

Cat,
Would boring it out bigger solve the problem? It seems like you would still have the same issue.
Zulu

dan610324 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 14, 2010, 06:00:33 AM »

the distance in front of the center of the trunnions is most often longer than the distance between center trunnions ant to the bottom of the bore , so it would remove more weight in front of the trunnions .
if you save the original bore diameter as a powder chamber you will make an even larger difference

what type of barrel is it ??
just think twice before you make anything with it
think safety

JeffG · « **Reply #12 on:** July 14, 2010, 06:26:12 AM »

Quote

what type of barrel is it ??
just think twice before you make anything with it
think safety

I hear that loud and clear. I am planning on welding a ring under the cascabel, and doing a rigid elevation device as shown.

dan610324 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 14, 2010, 06:28:56 AM »

Cat Whisperer · « **Reply #14 on:** July 14, 2010, 07:21:19 AM »

Quote from: Zulu on July 14, 2010, 03:52:16 AM

Quote from: Cat Whisperer on July 13, 2010, 06:14:15 PM
OR you could just bore it out to the next bigger size!

Cat,
Would boring it out bigger solve the problem? It seems like you would still have the same issue.
Zulu

It LIKELY would only slightly reduce the problem.

Double D · « **Reply #15 on:** July 14, 2010, 08:10:40 AM »

I still say you need to address why you have forward preponderance. Is it like Norm suggests that trunnion are to far to the rear or is it some other issue, like no reduced chamber or forward barrel is to heavy?

It might be fixable.

Zulu · « **Reply #16 on:** July 14, 2010, 09:07:49 AM »

Quote from: Cat Whisperer on July 14, 2010, 07:21:19 AM

Quote from: Zulu on July 14, 2010, 03:52:16 AM
Quote from: Cat Whisperer on July 13, 2010, 06:14:15 PM
OR you could just bore it out to the next bigger size!

Cat,
Would boring it out bigger solve the problem? It seems like you would still have the same issue.
Zulu

It LIKELY would only slightly reduce the problem.

Cat,
I don't see how it would help. The weight ratios would still be the same.
Zulu

Double D · « **Reply #17 on:** July 14, 2010, 09:30:35 AM »

If the gun has a howitzer chamber and only the bore is expanded then the ration will change.

dan610324 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 14, 2010, 10:56:57 AM »

not only that , see my earlier response

JeffG · « **Reply #19 on:** July 14, 2010, 01:16:32 PM »

Quote

trunnion are to far to the rear or is it some other issue, like no reduced chamber or forward barrel is to heavy?

The barrel and chamber are fine, the trunnion might be a little far back on this stubby barrel. Not to worry, I wil get 'er going.

Zulu · « **Reply #20 on:** July 14, 2010, 01:56:21 PM »

JeffG,
How about some pictures?
Zulu

JeffG · « **Reply #21 on:** July 16, 2010, 05:09:48 AM »

I am working a lot of hours, maybe next week.

Terry C. · « **Reply #22 on:** July 17, 2010, 04:01:10 AM »

Is this the barrel you purchased from a GBO sponsor?

Have you contacted them about this problem?

I wouldn't alter the barrel in any way until you talk to the manufacturer.

seacoastartillery · « **Reply #23 on:** July 17, 2010, 08:43:11 AM »

Finally! Thank you Terry C.

Mike and Tracy

JeffG · « **Reply #24 on:** July 17, 2010, 10:19:54 AM »

Ok, good advice I will contact Armorer 77

armorer77 · « **Reply #25 on:** July 17, 2010, 10:44:11 AM »

Jeff , this is the first design I ever made . I still shoot mine now and then . I never had this problem . But I will make it right . Armorer77

JeffG · « **Reply #26 on:** July 17, 2010, 11:36:34 AM »

Ok, hang on....as far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with the barrel. As it was made is JUST FINE! I think that is an interesting quirk that it leans forward, but NOT a defect. My question is then, Ed. Is it permissable to have my local welder put a small, stout ring below the cascabel to attatch an elevation screw like the one shown. ? Thanks again! JeffG

armorer77 · « **Reply #27 on:** July 17, 2010, 12:33:35 PM »

Absolutly . There is 1.375" wall around the 1" chamber in that area . You would have to burn off a lot of steel to cause a problem . Armorer77

JeffG · « **Reply #28 on:** July 18, 2010, 09:07:06 AM »

... I want you ALL to know that Ed's product is top-notch, the issue of the trunions is very minor, I was just seeking a solution for that minor problem. We comprimise historical accuracy in favor of function all of the time. I started the thread looking for that solution, and I think I unintentionally wound up insulting Ed. He has nothing to make right....I am totally satisfied!! Thanks Ed for a great product!!

Double D · « **Reply #29 on:** July 18, 2010, 09:47:36 AM »

We think Ed's product is just fine.

The only problem I have with Ed's products is my fixed retirement income. Ya see he wants to be paid for what he builds. Probably has something to do with, if he sells a cannon he can buy beans and eat regular.

If I work the grain harvest this fall, I have my eye on one of his short howitzers.

Hey, Ed, do you have a senior citizen menu? The wife seems to think the 401K and money market account are for the mortgage, new roof and furnace, oh yeah and a hearing aid for me. Don't understand the hearing aid part, I can hear her, just fine.

No we have no problem with Ed's stuff.