barrel liners q to brockway 32

[faw3]

On that 45 did you use real good liners ? from what Ive read in Caplock and a few other books these would shoot 5 all under 1 and and a half inch at 220 yds. its a 1x17 45.. 458 for a sharps 26" the liner is 5/8 sthought Id go get a shop to lath it down to my 50 cal hole size press it in tin it front and back or take my 50 out to 5/8sand tin or acru the thing in tin the front then have them do like some of the old remingtons it looks like a trees rings. If Brockway or Billinhurst could do this 140 yrs ago it can be done now (the idea then was the steel in the barrel had been compressed with all the shooting ,and they and others set records at 220 thru 440 yardsw that didnt fall for 40 to 60 years with some of them I just think its worth a try Id like to find out where all the millions of 60 to 100 buck new H and A underhammers are that got built from 65 thru 90 have gone off to hide at to use in a few stabs at this. Hate to use a new barrel even at 90 bucks.this way you get around the nipple hole location ,breech plug ect. any one got some ideas or old ones they want to get rid of ? :front: :front:

 

[Bill Brockway]

fw -

I don't recall the name of the liners I used, this would have been around 1970 or so, but they were not too expensive then. About $20 as I remember. They were advertised regularly in the National Rifleman. As best I can remember, the wall thickness was about 1/8," which would make the outside diameter on a .45 cal. barrel about .70". It may have been even 3/4."

I don't thick you would be able to turn down a .45 liner to fit a .50 hole. This would leave a wall thickness of only .025, which is barely enough for the depth of the rifling." I suspect the tube would collapse if you tried to turn it that thin, even with a steady rest on the lathe.

If the liner were sweated at both ends only, I would expect you might have trouble caused by the liner expanding more than the barrel from the heat of firing. If the liner was soldered solidly from end to end (or accraglassed) you would not have this problem. Everything should be done to make that barrel (and the liner) became one rigid mass.

One of the reasons Norman Brockway, Billinghurst and the others were able to create such great barrels was that they drilled, reamed, and rifled the liners themselves. Unlike today when most of us, myself included, are dependent on somebody else's barrel making abilities. And the barrel can't shoot any better than the liner that is used in it.

If you are interested in learning about barrel making, there is a very good book entitled "Sincerely yours, H.M. Pope," which is a collection of letters written by the late, great Harry Pope, mostly having to do with Pope's ideas about what makes a barrel shoot well. It is a very complicated subject, and Pope probably did more research in the subject than any other theorist. I suspect this book is out of print now, but you might be able to find it on the Internet.

Bill

 

[faw3]

Yes I got the term wrong I guess tinning to me is what you call it just all the way down. And yes Ive read 23 Pope books,And I wont find a liner like he would of made.the 451 and 458 are both 5/8 liners from 2 places 1 is $3 a inch the other is about a $1 more. Im not thinking of turning it down like that I must of put it in wrong, Im thinking my 50 barrel is .500 i was thinking turn down the liner to what ever the bore is after the lands are taken out try to get as tight a fit as i can (THE ONLY THING IM NOT SURE OF IS I WAS TOL IT COULD GAS CUT AROUND THE BREECH PLUG ) But I do see your point. Some of the liners for a sharps run about 150. :front:

 

[faw3]

Im afraid Pope was one of a kind! Can you see someone today makeing a barrel that the bullet wouldnt fall thru but you could huff and puff and blow it down? I read air gapped and want to laff sure he would to. :front: :front: