Opinions sought triple barrel

[deerstalkert]

I would prefer the first iteration . with that configuration you can use 3 ribs whereas with the 2nd you will need 4 ribs, assuming you rib the barrels and don't direct solder the tubes together.
also with the first configuration you have a more compact package. And the delta to close off the center gap will be smaller, more svelte so's to speak.
i for one will be watching this one if you share the build.
makes me think of the saw, "just because it's a bad idea, doesn't mean it wont be fun!"

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Here's an older version.
It seems to have a few bad ideas of its own!

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=12712&highlight=barrel+prague

 

[Commodore Swab]

I will check back in a year and see how things have moved along with this.
My guess?
Not much.

I very rarely post build pictures/updates. Too many keyboard experts/warriors. I have a good number of projects in the works which gives me better options if someone wants something special. The primary piece I am working on is a hand cannon but you won't find a thread on it. There is also another Ferguson that will take precedence when the parts arrive, also in that parts order are the pieces for the pistol mortar. No threads on any of it. This being a new parts set is something I like to figure out what I am going to be doing and part of that is figuring out whether to keep it together as a triple or break it into different guns.

 

[Juice Jaws]

I am playing with these triple barrel parts and am thinking about the barrel build. The bottom barrel is a 32 rifle and much smaller than the top two (62smooth and 50 rifle) and tucks under. Naturally the breach forms a triangle but the muzzle is where I'm undecided.

In my opinion too much gun to lug around, but interesting idea good luck

View attachment 265819
Putting both muzzles together is typically what you see in a double. As a rifle this results in an off center bore which typically isn't a big deal in a shotgun. This would form a triangle of barrels.
View attachment 265816
OR
I can drop the bores parallel which leaves a gap between barrels at the muzzle. Normally this would just look bad but being a triple barrel it allows the lower barrel to be tucked in between the 2 forming more of a shallow V. Side profile (half stock) results in a more gentle taper. Unfortunately it does leave a larger gap to fill aesthetically. The pictures are taken of the bottom barrel on top due to clamping ect.
View attachment 265810
View attachment 265821
What is your opinion?

 

[PathfinderNC]

Here's an older version.
It seems to have a few bad ideas of its own!

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=12712&highlight=barrel+prague

That looks like a very good forum!

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Pathfinder,
Particularly for pre-flintlock, but still a Huge amount of information and photos for flint and later.

It's not a shooting forum, so OK to post a link here.

 

[DementedMindOfJac]

I am playing with these triple barrel parts and am thinking about the barrel build. The bottom barrel is a 32 rifle and much smaller than the top two (62smooth and 50 rifle) and tucks under. Naturally the breach forms a triangle but the muzzle is where I'm undecided.
View attachment 265819
Putting both muzzles together is typically what you see in a double. As a rifle this results in an off center bore which typically isn't a big deal in a shotgun. This would form a triangle of barrels.
View attachment 265816
OR
I can drop the bores parallel which leaves a gap between barrels at the muzzle. Normally this would just look bad but being a triple barrel it allows the lower barrel to be tucked in between the 2 forming more of a shallow V. Side profile (half stock) results in a more gentle taper. Unfortunately it does leave a larger gap to fill aesthetically. The pictures are taken of the bottom barrel on top due to clamping ect.
View attachment 265810
View attachment 265821
What is your opinion?

I think your biggest problem will be to get the barrels to converge at a specific range. The ascetics are easy to fix by sticking a ramrod right twixt the .50 and .62.
Multi-barrel systems are generally in the same caliber and are intended to provide either a fast follow-up shot/s or a volley.
This design of many ball-weights seems to be intended as a weapon for versatility, not speed or shock an' awe. If that's the case, I would suggest instead single barrels each with it's own sights that all fit the same stock.
I'm not knocking your idea, that's sound, however getting two barrels to converge is very difficult. You can see that reflected in a double rifle's cost. Swivel-barrel guns don't suffer from this as each has it's own sights.
Just my $0.02. Good luck.

 

[Commodore Swab]

f that's the case, I would suggest instead single barrels each with it's own sights that all fit the same stock.

Independent sights for each barrel is something I have considered and if I run them as a triangle will probably have to go this route due to the significant taper breech to muzzle.

 

[DementedMindOfJac]

Independent sights for each barrel is something I have considered and if I run them as a triangle will probably have to go this route due to the significant taper breech to muzzle.

I just can't figure why. I'm not trying to be a Richard, but it seems like hail of a lot of expense and energy to build something that a H&R Handi-rifle is an upgrade to.

 

[deerstalkert]

I just can't figure why. I'm not trying to be a Richard, but it seems like hail of a lot of expense and energy to build something that a H&R Handi-rifle is an upgrade to.

"just because it's a bad idea, doesn't mean it wont be fun!"

 

[DementedMindOfJac]

"just because it's a bad idea, doesn't mean it wont be fun!"

Never said it's a bad idea.

I'm not knocking your idea, that's sound,