Torador Barrel Investigation - Part II

[rickystl]

Hello all.
Well, I received the barrel back. On the YouTube video "Mughal Matchlock" there is a very brief skeletal type interior view of a loaded barrel showing the distance of the patched ball from the loose powder in the chamber. I tried putting the video on still, to copy this view, but can't seem to do it. Maybe another member with better computer skills than I can do it ? It does seem to be a accurate likeness of the interior of my barrel. Would sure like to have it.
Anyway, here is what I found: This barrel is 55.5 inches (141cm) long and .59 caliber (15mm). From the muzzle end, the bore travels towards the breech to about 51.5 inches (131cm) where it NARROWS to a smaller cone shape for about the next 1 inch (2.5cm) and into the large powder chamber that is about 2.5 inches (6.35cm) in length and very large diameter. The breech plug material was about 1/2 to 3/4 inches in length (about 1.25 to 2cm).
So it does seem to portry an accurate account of what is shown in the video. To get this shape inside of the barrel, it would have required the barrel being forged around a pre-shaped mandral of some sort. Another interesting note is the vent hole is drilled just ahead of the breech plug, which is typical, but drilled at a 60 degree angle similar to Japanese matchlocks. Hmmmm.
I tried to get the best pics I could with and without flash. But you really can't see the interior properly without specialized photographic instruments. Thus my description above.
Well, I've finally answered my question about the interior of these barrels. It's likely that the other Torador barrel interiors are similar.
Here are some pics............
Rick.

[rickystl]

Now the breech end.........

[rickystl]

Last ones.............

[kahnjar1]

Hi Rick,
Well I have to admit I am surprised! The thing which interests me is that if the patched?? lead ball when loaded has to be forced past a swamped area of the barrel, what happens when it reaches the more "open" part? I would have thought that the ball would then not be a snug fit anymore, and pressure would be lost past the ball at the time of ignition of the powder.
Also when fired the pressure inside the barrel would be markedly increased on the way out, again when the ball reaches the swamped area, which I would have thought would have increased the chance of the barrel bursting at that point.
Swamped barrels would be safe if lead shot was used rather than a solid ball.

I do not for one moment doubt your findings, but it goes against the safe laws of ballistics as I know them.

I also need to comment on the barrel itself. You would be correct in thinking the barrel was forge welded round a mandrel. That is how the beautiful pattern you have there is created. This method was also used in England and European countries, and we know there are some really exquisite barrels which have come from there.
Regards Stu

[rickystl]

Hi Stu.
It's very unusual to say the least. There is a short 1-1 1/2" narrow section (smaller than the bore diameter) between where the ball sits in the barrel, and the loose powder in the breech. And the ball not sitting on top of the powder would seem to reduce velocity. And, could even be considered a bore obstruction!
But they seemed to believe this design, along with the long barrels, was more accurate. Which, of course, defies what you and I understand of black powder ballistics.
I think the best explanation for this bore design was posted by Forum member Richard in Part-I of my original Thread. The ancient "meal" powder versus the later "corn" powder. Apparently the old meal powder would not reliably ignite if compressed. If this is true, than that would explain the loose (non-compressed) powder in the large chamber funneling through a narrower chamber to help increase pressure/velocity to the ball make more sense.
Of course, I would not shoot the gun with this bore configuration. Especially with today's black powder, which is more powerful than even the 1880's powder. Which also means, that this barrel will require a new steel liner if I intend to shoot it.
Rick.

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by rickystl

Hi Stu.
It's very unusual to say the least. There is a short 1-1 1/2" narrow section (smaller than the bore diameter) between where the ball sits in the barrel, and the loose powder in the breech. And the ball not sitting on top of the powder would seem to reduce velocity. And, could even be considered a bore obstruction!
But they seemed to believe this design, along with the long barrels, was more accurate. Which, of course, defies what you and I understand of black powder ballistics.
I think the best explanation for this bore design was posted by Forum member Richard in Part-I of my original Thread. The ancient "meal" powder versus the later "corn" powder. Apparently the old meal powder would not reliably ignite if compressed. If this is true, than that would explain the loose (non-compressed) powder in the large chamber funneling through a narrower chamber to help increase pressure/velocity to the ball make more sense.
Of course, I would not shoot the gun with this bore configuration. Especially with today's black powder, which is more powerful than even the 1880's powder. Which also means, that this barrel will require a new steel liner if I intend to shoot it.
Rick.

Hi Rick, I see Berkley has provided a very clear illustration of what you have described. Thanks Berkley for clarifying that.
Your comment about long barrels is a slightly different subject. The reason that (most) black powder guns have long barrels is due to the way black powder reacts when ignited. On ignition black powder gradually builds up pressure as it pushes the ball down the barrel. This does not happen with nitro powder which instantly creates the pressure upon ignition.
The other difference is that NITRO powder requires to be COMPRESSED if it is to explode. If not compressed it will only flare up. You can try this for yourself but DO NOT do it inside...... and DO NOT try to ignite black powder in this way!!

[Berkley]

Originally Posted by rickystl

On the YouTube video "Mughal Matchlock" there is a very brief skeletal type interior view of a loaded barrel showing the distance of the patched ball from the loose powder in the chamber.

Rick,
I hope this is the image you want.
I certainly wouldn't consider trying this as an experiment.
Berkley

[rickystl]

Originally Posted by Berkley

Rick,
I hope this is the image you want.
I certainly wouldn't consider trying this as an experiment.
Berkley

Hi Berkley.
I've been out of town on business - again!
THANK YOU !!!!!!! Thank you soooooo much for the image !! I've added this to my library. I've found this image of the inside of the bore to be identical to my barrel. For now, I feel I've at least solved the mystery of the bore/breech configuration of the barrel. It would not surprise me to find out that all the Torador barrels were designed similar.
NO! I would not fire the gun with this bore configuration. A normal load of 80-90 grains of FFG black powder in the breech cavity with that much distance between the ball and powder, would be similar to a bore obstruction in my opinion. The only other way to fire it (assuming the entire inside of the barrel can be satisfactorily burnished clean) would be to fill the entire chamber and narrow portion with powder all the way till where the ball seats. My guess is about 200 grains of powder. So, we won't do that either. LOL!
Thanks again for the images. Much appreciated.
Rick.