First off, please forgive my ignorance, as I will readily admit I've never so much as handled a double rifle. I load, shoot, dabble and tinker with firearms of assorted lineage, but not a double rifle.

The question is this--why regulate to print both projectiles to the same point at 50 yds?

If the chambers are, say 1" apart, and the muzzles are also 1" apart, shouldn't the point of impact be 1" apart, whether at 25, 50, 100 or even 150yds? Why bother with convergence at some intermediate point, only to diverge at greater distances?

It seems to me that if bullet trajectories are on parallel paths, each aside the sight line, then elevation is of greater concern than regulation.

Am I being obtuse?

In a perfect world that is what you would want. Unfortunately, regulating double rifles is not a science; otherwise we would just weld him together precisely, in a fixture, and they would cost $1000.
Also realize that due to recoil, muzzle flip and jump, velocity, and even the bullet acceleration rate, affect regulation, so the barrels cannot be made parallel. That won't work.
It is a black art, affixing the barrels to one another, and getting them to hit within two inches at 50 meters, (the usual standard), is not easy at all.
Obtuse? Don't know what that means, but you are asking a lot.

Great explanation of regulation for our friend.
And you you: https://www.google.com/search?...rome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

After 10+ years of building double rifles and regulating them this is the best explanation I have been able to come up with, if someone else can do better I welcome the effort and I'll probably steal it for future use. The explanation starts at around 11:11.

https://youtu.be/PbswiaELwvY?t=11m11s

Hope that helps

Thank you, all. Colin, I'm going to watch that video a couple of times. I hadn't considered that the regulation really includes the whole "system"- person plus double gun.



Thanks again, Merry Christmas!

Regulation includes many factors, which cannot be consolidated down into one diagram or formula; some of the variables cannot even be quantified; so, although the basic principles may be explained, (Having built six of them.) the physics of doing it are quite involved. Even though mechanically simple (you just move the barrels until they hit where you want them to). But that video is a good basic explanation.
Each rifle seems to have it's own personality both during the build and after it is finished.

As the film maker states, REGULATION depends on barrels being fitted in a converging configuration so line of sight down the bore the barrels show to be physically converging, actually crossing, and low compared to where the sights show when the rifle is static. This is because a thing called BARREL TIMEthat is effected by the recoil of the rifle. when a side by side double rifle is fired, each barrel moves back, up, and away from the other barrel to a point where each barrel is pointing at the place on the target where the sights were pointing when the trigger is pulled. The right barrel will move Up and to the left, and the left barrel will move up and to the right under recoil so that when the bullets exit the muzzle they will be shooting parallel to form a composite group of both barrels on the target. the centers of each barrels individual group should remain on it's own side of the aiming point on the target is the rifle is properly regulated.

The larger the chambering the easier it is to find regulation, but it also takes a toll on the regulator's shoulder. He is right as well in saying that some of the ultra big bores have to be loaded in both barrels because of the heavy weight of the ammo.
The smaller and faster chamberings can be much harder to find regulation because the movement of the barrels move at much smaller increment during the barrel time, but this is not as hard on the regulator as it is with the ultra big bores.

His soldering system shows some promise, that I may try instead of the traditional wire and tapered spacers. I also like the heated bore inserts inside bore as well.

He used a term that I am going to start using with reference to the "R" word, which means different things to different people; TIMING. I like it. And that is more descriptive of what is happening during a DR build than anything else. You are timing the barrels to make the bullets hit where you want them to. Like you install the timing chain on an engine to make the cam and crank "timed" so it will run, (and install the oil pump and distributor to match).
Timing is a better term for it.
Now, why slam the idea of adjustable barrels? I just got a new Chapuis 9.3 and that system works very well. I have the bullets hitting within one inch at 50 yards, and perfectly side by side.
Why not? Ok, not traditional. I get that.

The idea of adjustable barrels was churning around in my ADHD mind....if a set of dovetails, tapers and screws could be used...Hmmmmmm. Any way, I've got two projects in play before I can even put any ideas on paper.

Thanks for the great information and insight, guys!

I would ask that you watch the video again.

For comparative purposes, it was pointed out that this type of barrel setup (adjustable regulation) costs less and a couple of reasons why.

I believe it is important for a buyer to understand why one rifle costs more than the other; the man-hours and ammo add significantly to the cost of regulating a double.

Of course, not having to solder the barrels together costs less; I well understood your comparison, having built a few doubles, but that does not make it inferior.
I also have two Baikals with adjustable regulation; easy to make bullets shoot on top of one another at 50 yards.
Dull: no need to re-invent it; Chapuis X4 is in production now; just copy them.

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:
His soldering system shows some promise, that I may try instead of the traditional wire and tapered spacers. I also like the heated bore inserts inside bore as well.

Once in a while I have a clever idea, I was in the hardware store buying a hose clamp for the dryer vent when I came up with that one.

The soldering irons is old school that's how I was taught by the man I apprenticed under.

At least a couple of years ago, I read something from Aaron Little if I recall.
He was speaking of working with Bailey Bradshaw and the regulation process.
I think that Aaron wrote that at some 215 yards All of Bailey Bradshaw doubles
were firing both barrels into a six inch circle on a steel plate, before they left
Bradshaw's shop for delivery to the customer!!!!!!!!!! I hope A. L. jumps in here.

The hose clamp thing was published in 2001 by Ellis Brown (page 132); not saying you didn't think of it too.
I never use the wire method; that probably dates from the 1800s before hoses were invented. And it is tricky to use; you need three hands anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
The hose clamp thing was published in 2001 by Ellis Brown (page 132); not saying you didn't think of it too.
I never use the wire method; that probably dates from the 1800s before hoses were invented. And it is tricky to use; you need three hands anyway.

I didn't know that Ellis had thought it up/published it but I'm more than happy to give credit were it is due, 2001 was before the light went on in my head so it's all his. I've never seen/heard anyone else use it though, of course that doesn't mean much since there isn't a lot of sharing of information in the double rifle building community.

The first documented use I know, of hose/band clamps for DR Regulation, now more correctly called TIMING, is in the September 1982 Guns Magazine "Shotgun to Rifle Conversion" article by Jim Weller.
And I have been doing this DR build thing longer than that.
But true, it is a minuscule craft and with no mass market, before the internet, everyone was on his, or her, own.

When I was young and innocent, Dulltool, I invented a sight that solved all these problems. It involved separate adjustable leaves for each barrel, flipped over (and back in some iterations) by recoil inertia. Some versions would be reset automatically upon opening the action.

It was not intended to do away with a point-blank sight but worked like a beauty and at whatever distance you zeroed the leaves, each would follow the bullet's lateral path to infinity.

Trouble was, it did add some expense and complexity and threatened to blow away the main mystique in making double rifles. The cost would have been feasible for machine-made rifles, but counter-productive for the emperors of the London trade.

Unsurprisingly, none of the famous names contacted took it up - but I did gather a fine collection of letter heads.

Looking back, I see their point. What a pity they didn't tell Zeiss and Swarovski they didn't want their decadent new scopes with constantly centred reticles, too.

After going to all the trouble of regulating barrels, setting up the old, stable scopes would have been a doddle for them.

quote:

Originally posted by CowboyCS:
After 10+ years of building double rifles and regulating them this is the best explanation I have been able to come up with, if someone else can do better I welcome the effort and I'll probably steal it for future use. The explanation starts at around 11:11.

https://youtu.be/PbswiaELwvY?t=11m11s

Hope that helps

Thank's for taking the time with the video and posting it.Very interesting and informative.jc

quote:

Originally posted by John Chalmers:
Thank's for taking the time with the video and posting it.Very interesting and informative.jc

Glad you enjoyed it, it's just one of a long series(10+ hours) on building that rifle. There are other complete documented builds on my youtube channel if you are looking for a way to overcome insomnia.
https://www.youtube.com/channe...4UCE9A83SK1hk2GT-Jqg

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
The hose clamp thing was published in 2001 by Ellis Brown (page 132); not saying you didn't think of it too.
I never use the wire method; that probably dates from the 1800s before hoses were invented. And it is tricky to use; you need three hands anyway.

I too saw the E. Brown system but the automotive hose clamps are a little Shade tree mechanics and was dismissed as a little make do in nature.

The clamps Cowboy uses along with the little steel spacers makes a lot better and cleaner system IMO. Basically the same but a little easier to use.

As far as the inside the bore heaters go that is a very old system of soldering system, but also a little easier to use and cleaner than the old long rods used way back and make a more precise heating for a very tight solder.

His film is good as well, but the one done by Chris Sells is much easier to understand the reasons that the barrels cannot just be soldered parallel, by the amateur in the way regulation is explained.

dpcd, you have your work well done as well, and I think we need more people like you, Chris and CowboyCS, who are willing to explain why double rifles , even the field grade cost so much, with information of the complex process needed to build a double rifle that is worth owning, done by very skilled builders.

............Good Show gentlemen!

The 2-bore rifle video was interesting, esp. the bit about the need for the second barrel to be loaded and fired in the correct sequence.

I'm not so sure about his explanation of why the barrels are not parallel. The physics equation is good if you have the numbers to tell you how thick to make wedges, otherwise it doesn't take us far. The stuff about bullet rotation is bound to be a factor, too, but he seemed light on explaining the barrels' diverging because they are outside the longitudinal centre line, pivoting from the butt under recoil. That is, stock cast aside, because the right barrel is to the right of the centre line it will pivot to the right (and up because of the stock bend); similarly, the left muzzle will move up and to the left. Stock cast and shooter's handedness should affect the matter as well, of course, not to mention mass, scopes etc.

Anyway, when I asked Paul Roberts at Rigby if he'd consider my sight, about 35 years ago, he said barrel regulation was really no big deal at all. He could regulate five rifles in one day, he said. That was, coincidentally, roughly the firm's annual production of DB rifles, too.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
The 2-bore rifle video was interesting, esp. the bit about the need for the second barrel to be loaded and fired in the correct sequence.

I'm not so sure about his explanation of why the barrels are not parallel. The physics equation is good if you have the numbers to tell you how thick to make wedges, otherwise it doesn't take us far. The stuff about bullet rotation is bound to be a factor, too, but he seemed light on explaining the barrels' diverging because they are outside the longitudinal centre line, pivoting from the butt under recoil. That is, stock cast aside, because the right barrel is to the right of the centre line it will pivot to the right (and up because of the stock bend); similarly, the left muzzle will move up and to the left. Stock cast and shooter's handedness should affect the matter as well, of course, not to mention mass, scopes etc.

Anyway, when I asked Paul Roberts at Rigby if he'd consider my sight, about 35 years ago, he said barrel regulation was really no big deal at all. He could regulate five rifles in one day, he said. That was, coincidentally, roughly the firm's annual production of DB rifles, too.

My videos aren't supposed to be a step-by-step of how to build a rifle with all the dimension, set-ups and math included, if they were I wouldn't be able to do them for free because they would be a full time production project.

For an explanation of the front wedge try this earlier video, start at 14:15 -

https://youtu.be/swMtBj5dmWU?t=14m15s

As you can see by the way I make the regulating wedge, it allows for a lot of variation in horizontal/vertical adjustment.

Hope that helps explain that part.

Upon further contemplation:
That series( https://www.youtube.com/watch?...QP0KDLDQWQA&index=41 ) is over 10 hours of video that covers over 1000 hours of build time all for free. Most people wouldn't have any clue how many hours of filming, editing and uploading went into making that series. If you find a anyone else on the internet who has gone into as much detail as I have in documenting double rifle builds for free I'd like to see the videos(There is a whole other series on my youtube channel documenting the build of a muzzleloading double rifle( https://www.youtube.com/watch?...6e7mNvDJw4L&index=17 ).
https://www.youtube.com/channe...4UCE9A83SK1hk2GT-Jqg

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
The 2-bore rifle video was interesting, esp. the bit about the need for the second barrel to be loaded and fired in the correct sequence.

I'm not so sure about his explanation of why the barrels are not parallel. The physics equation is good if you have the numbers to tell you how thick to make wedges, otherwise it doesn't take us far. The stuff about bullet rotation is bound to be a factor, too, but he seemed light on explaining the barrels' diverging because they are outside the longitudinal centre line, pivoting from the butt under recoil. That is, stock cast aside, because the right barrel is to the right of the centre line it will pivot to the right (and up because of the stock bend); similarly, the left muzzle will move up and to the left. Stock cast and shooter's handedness should affect the matter as well, of course, not to mention mass, scopes etc.

Anyway, when I asked Paul Roberts at Rigby if he'd consider my sight, about 35 years ago, he said barrel regulation was really no big deal at all. He could regulate five rifles in one day, he said. That was, coincidentally, roughly the firm's annual production of DB rifles, too.

Sam, any double rifle that is built with cast off, or on is regulated with the stock already ready to shoot. That has nothing to do with why the barrels both recoil up, back, and away from the other barrel. That is simply a fact! Barrels have to converge to shoot side by side on the target, whether you accept that fact or not is your privilege, and the amount of convergence is found by trial and error by the regulator who starts with a educated guess, and works from there till the rifle regulates properly!

.....................................................................

No Mac, I don't say cast is any big part of the issue, just one of several that may affect it. It is the side-by-side nature of the beast that is the biggest contributor (I bet O/Us are much easier to set up, though parallel barrels would not work there, either).

I do agree with you that what causes the problem is less important than that it will be there and the barrels will need to look cross-eyed.

CowboyCS, thanks, I will look at the other video ASAP.

quote:

Originally posted by CowboyCS:

quote:

Originally posted by John Chalmers:
Thank's for taking the time with the video and posting it.Very interesting and informative.jc

Glad you enjoyed it, it's just one of a long series(10+ hours) on building that rifle. There are other complete documented builds on my youtube channel if you are looking for a way to overcome insomnia.
https://www.youtube.com/channe...4UCE9A83SK1hk2GT-Jqg

Thank you for the link, ill be sure to look.jc

CowboyCS, your videos should have a health warning on them! If my wife catches me sitting here watching any more of them today, there could be trouble. I particularly like the stuff on lock design.