What about building the barrels of a DR similar to those of a Dan Wesson pistol?

Build a shroud of carbon fiber, to try and keep the weight down/ensure stiffness, and then have the barrel threaded both into the action, and the end of the shroud. Dan Wesson's have always been very accurate pistols (not 100% on it, but I don't think anyone's built a more accurate revolver.)

I can think of two problems: barrel heating and regulation -- you can't really take the barrel apart, and relay it, unless you used seperate barrel shrouds for each barrel, and glued them in place.

Now, Doubles aren't usually fired in sustained strings, so the heating may, or may not be an issue.

As for the regulation -- I think, since the vibration would be far more controlled -- vibrating at two fixed points, rather than 1, it may be a much simpler matter of just holding your tolerances down.

At which point, someone on here will suggest I shut up, and try it myself, but I'd like to know if I'm just being nuts, or what I've said makes sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
What about building the barrels of a DR similar to those of a Dan Wesson pistol?

Build a shroud of carbon fiber, to try and keep the weight down/ensure stiffness, and then have the barrel threaded both into the action, and the end of the shroud. Dan Wesson's have always been very accurate pistols (not 100% on it, but I don't think anyone's built a more accurate revolver.)

Aglifter, many things have been tried over the last 200 yrs of building double rifles, many of them simply didn't work, and the ones that did have been incorperated into the building of double rifle of today.

quote:

I can think of two problems: barrel heating and regulation -- you can't really take the barrel apart, and relay it, unless you used seperate barrel shrouds for each barrel, and glued them in place.

The two problems you mention are large ones! The heat can be handled by simply cutting a series of air ports in the shroud! The regulation, however would be a real problem, especially with a shroud around each barrel.

quote:

Now, Doubles aren't usually fired in sustained strings, so the heating may, or may not be an issue.

As for the regulation -- I think, since the vibration would be far more controlled -- vibrating at two fixed points, rather than 1, it may be a much simpler matter of just holding your tolerances down.

Vibration, in a double rifle is not a problem! That is taken care of by permently tieing the barrels together. Single barrels are hendered by hormonics of the barrels wave a vibration, but that doesn't happen in a double rifle. What does make a difference is a combination, or physical convergence of the barrels, and the time the bullet spends inside the barrel, and the amount of recoil causeing a certain amount of barrel rise, and flip to the side away from the other barrel. This is a very complicated set of physical things that determines regulation.

Your sugeation could be done, but would not be a change barrel set-up like the pistol you mention, because evey time the barrels were removed, they would have the be re-regulated when returned to the action. The alternative would to build several sets of barrels, the they would stay regulated, and that has been done for 200 yrs already.

quote:

At which point, someone on here will suggest I shut up, and try it myself, but I'd like to know if I'm just being nuts, or what I've said makes sense.

Aglifter, there are no dumb questions except those that aren't asked! Keep um coming!

Not a bad question at all. Innovation is what leads to improvement.

I agree with Mac 100%, and would add another consideration - weight.

Check out this site: http://www.christensenarms.com/rifles.asp

These guys use carbon (graphite) as a shroud for the 416 steel. A lot of plusses for the non double.

But a double rifle in DG calibers needs weight as part of the regulation equation and to offset recoil.

It is likely you would end up with a barrel set half the weight of steel, causing some serious balance issues. To compensate, you would need to reduce the weight of the stock and receiver or add weight to the foreend. Trimming weight from the stock and receiver would lead to a double coming in at 6 to 7 pounds (or less!). I would not like to be on the receiving end of that recoil with a DG caliber.

You could add weight to the foreend, but with doubles the barrels are gradually tapered from breach to bore, so the center of gravity is ideally between hands. You would have to find some way to add weight in a manner that did not impact handling and balance. That is not an impossible task, but more tinkering leads ultimately to higher costs.

Now there could be some "happy medium" - perhaps a thin coat of carbon that would not throw off the weight but would be enough to dissapate the heat. And figuring out how to keep the barrels bonded together. Or not. I suppose you could go the way of Blaser with their "free floating" concept. Good luck with that.

IF someone could pull it off, there may be a market IF the double comes in at around $3000-$4000 retail in a DG caliber.

why couldn't you just bore 2 holes in a rectangular piece of barrel-quality steel, cut rifling in it, chamber to whatever caliber you wanted, shape it's outside to nice appearance, and be done??? the bores could be drilled as to "converge" (regulated) as necessary for distance....with the CNC capabilities, wonder if it would work???

I didn't mean that it would work for interchanging the barrels, but as a method of fixing the vibration at two points. Additionally, any torquing would only happen at the ends -- actually, it might be able to work w. two independent tubes -- maybe leave a very small gap between the two, so that it almost looks normal. The external shape of the shroud shouldn't matter, and the barrel would be free to vibrate.

Anyway, it can probably wait until I finish the much more boring projects I do for a living.

Thank you for the input.

jimatcat,

On www.bigfivehq.com there are several doubles

made with bbls as you describe by Claude BRUCHETTE I think.

Go there and click on Search/Purchase items. Then scroll to

double rifles and click. Scroll down and you'll get to them,

they're very high priced and ugly IMO. I have no idea how

well they are shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by jimatcat:
why couldn't you just bore 2 holes in a rectangular piece of barrel-quality steel, cut rifling in it, chamber to whatever caliber you wanted, shape it's outside to nice appearance, and be done??? the bores could be drilled as to "converge" (regulated) as necessary for distance....with the CNC capabilities, wonder if it would work???

SOUNDS SIMPLE, only trouble is, it doesn't work!

Even two rifles the exact same shape, and same caliber, and same length, that weighs the same will not regulate the same! The nearest you can get is an educated guess on convergence, as a starting point, but the regulation still has to be done by trial & error!

jesus those guns are god damn ugly..........

YES, but they incorporate the "new technology"

sometimes the old ways are best

aglifter - if the dan wesson method is so good why haven't they replaced smith & wesson as leading pistol maker ?

How about this for a novel idea? Take two barrel blanks, make a mono-bloc, fit the mono-bloc to the action, install the barrels into the mono-bloc,threaded in, place a wedge between the muzzles,solder it in, and a wedge between the barrels in the section,where the forend goes, to act as a foreend hanger,silver braze that in, install temperary sights, then fire the rifle to see where each barrel shoots. Tweek the barrels by heating the solder, and moveing the wedge, and twist the barrels till they both hit together on a horazonal line, and shoot side by side on each side of the verticle line on the target. Then lay the ribs, and make final quarterrib, and front, and rear sights,Then re-fire the rifle to see if everything has remained the same,if so, then finish soldering everything up tight, and card excess solder, cut the sights to the range you want and finish,the wood, and steel! About a couple hundred other things that I didn't mention, and what you have if everything goes properly, is a basic double rifle!

Just about anything else you can think of is nothing more than steel and wood, that will not shoot worth crap!

it would seem that with as many rifles that a DR builder produces, that a "starting" point for regulation exists...i realalize that the bores aren't parallel...that there is a "bow" or wedge in the middle that makes the barrels shoot to essentially same POA...

I got to mess around with building doubles for a while and was shocked at how much more art than science was involved. With the cockiness of four science degrees under my belt I went into it thinking as long as the manufacturing tolerances were right that the guns would shoot very nearly the same from one gun to another.

When we first soldered on the filler ribs and fit the wedge we would use lasers in the bores with long (tightly fitting) aluminum pilots to get them close. The last four I was in on building were all coming together about the same time. As initially soldered the lasers were about an inch apart on all four guns at around 60 feet.

Each one of those four guns grouped COMPLETELY differently at 50 yards! They had almost nothing in common. One converged sharply, two were way off vertically and one was diverging. They were close enough that they could be corrected pretty easily but just because technology tells you the barrels are near parallel doesn't mean a whole lot when you actually add all the variables of sending bullets down the tubes.

That's not to say there won't be better ways coming down the technology highway at some point but there is a lot more to those guns than I originally thought.

Kyler

Kyler is right, the first time a person see what is involved first hand, he is amazed! Nearly all manufacturers, today, use lazers for the initial setting of the regulation to a starting point. This is only an educated guess as to where one should start, and is not usually even close, but is on the paper at 25 yds!

When you want to see how the barrels are converging, you can place a set of regulated barrels in a vice, with the sights aligned on the aiming point of a target at 25 yds, then place two empty cases in the chambers, without primers, or you can use lazers if the are fitted well to the bore alignment. Now look through the flash holes in each chambered case at the target. What you will see is, the rightbarrel will be pointing at a point that is LOW , and on the left of the point of aim of the sights. The LEFT will be pointing to a point that is low,and on the RIGHTthe point of aim of the sights! By drawing an "X" with the apex on the point of aim of the sights, from each of the line of sights points of each barrel described above, as each barrel slower the bullet impacts will more or less follow it's line up, till it prints just on the right of the point of aim on the target for the right barrel, and vice-versa for the left barrel, then the rifle is shooting to it's regulation.
Actually in actual practice, for the safety of the rifle as well as yourself, your starting load should be low, and will start shooting HIGH, and on it's own side of the verticle line through the point of aim, or shooting WIDE, and as the speed increases the shots will be lower, and the barrels will shoot closer together. If the shots are crossing the load it too fast, if they are shooting apart, it is too slow.

That is to find a load that will shoot to the regulation that is physically built into the rifle.

For physicaly regulating the first adjustment is with each barrel looking at it's opposite side and low, as above. then the rifle is fired at 30 yds or so, with a load you want to regulate the rifle for. then the solder is headed and softened till the wedges and barrels can be tweeked to get both barrels to hit at the same elevation, and with the right barrel printing on the right, and the left barrel printing on the left, with groups from both barrels printing close enough together, to form a acceptable composite group. when this is done properly the rifle should shoot paralell down range, eventhough the barrels physically converge. This paralell flight path is the result of the rifle's recoil placeing the barrel at a place where it is shooting paralell when the bullets exits the muzzles. Then the rifle is regulated. The misunderstanding most have is that because the barrels converge, the bullet's flight paths will cross at some point down range.

This is not true, and one reason people believe that is, because people use the phrase "REGULATED FOR 50 YDS", but this phrase only applies to the sights for that range, and is the usual distance for the standing rear sight. If the rifle has several flip-up blades for, say, 100Yds, 150 yds, and 200yds, this is for elevation only, and the bottom of the "V" in each back sight will be perfectly in line with the one before it, and the one after it. This is because the rifle regulates to shoot paralell. Those flip-up are not put there for decoration, if your rifle is useing a proper load, the rifle will shoot to all those sights at the range they are cut (REGULATED) for.

I hope this is as clear as Texas MUD!

Mac,

thanks for sharing that "pearl of great price" with us. Knowledge not shared is ignorance spread.

thanks again,

Rich
DRSS

Mac and Kyler, You explained that very well,i have tried for over40 years but people just don't get it. Double Rifles are as lndividual as people and they want a 500.00 double rifle that shoots good and looks great. Very nicely done. Rich

Actually I think the Europeans have a system to place a rifle barrel in a shotgun barrel (usually of a drilling) which can be regulated and works very much like the Dan Wesson revolver (thinking of the shotgun barrel as the shroud).

regards,

mike

Kyler, Mac:

Do you think it would be any easier to regulate the barrels on an over/under than on a side-by-side?

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
Kyler, Mac:

Do you think it would be any easier to regulate the barrels on an over/under than on a side-by-side?

Dave

Dave the process is almost the same with both rifles, but each has it's problems to overcome. The difference is, however the O/U doesn't have the muzzle flip to the sides like the S/S does.

If the barrels are in line with each other vertically, then only the wedges are in play fir adjusting the conversion, so the rifle prints the top barrel slightly above the bottom barrel on each side of the horrizonal line so the barrels shoot paralell, while being the same for windage.

The barrels of an O/U recoil dofferently from each other, which is a problem the S/S doesn't have. What I mean by this is the S/S recoils the same way with each barrel, but in opposite dirrections, while the O/U recoils both barrels up, but to different degrees. The top barre recoild causing the barrel to rise higher than does the bottom barrel. The bottom recoils more straight back than the top barrel. This is because the top barrel is farther above the CG of the rifle than the bottom barrel, and creates it's own problems. This makes regulating of the O/U somewhat different, but, IMO, easier to regulate than the S/S.

Hello,
So my idea of something similar to a shotgun choke with the bore eccentric to the OD to move the barrel around will not work.
John

On a double shotgun site I proposed the possibility of making a SxS with parallel barrels and thus forget the ideas of convergance or heat transfer.

I've seen O/U guns of this type but I can't say I ever noticed this on a rifle. For either type does anyone think this is workable? I contacted a European barrel maker about blanks for a shotgun project and it turns out they have double rifle blank sets of O/U or SxS form.

My guess is that mid-barrel and end of barrel fastenings could be somehow adjusted to bring them on target at a certain range (allowing for the shot or bullet types).

I have no use for a true close-range double rifle as I have no dedicated need for it and the usual sight ranges are set too short. But I would like to make (in whole or part) such an item just for the sake of art and technology.

not a brilliant idea... but give it a go

quote:

Originally posted by tomo577:
aglifter - if the dan wesson method is so good why haven't they replaced smith & wesson as leading pistol maker ?

if doubles are so good, where are there so many bolt action trash?

HMMM, could PRICE have something to do with it?

quote:

Originally posted by f.s. piekarczyk:
On a double shotgun site I proposed the possibility of making a SxS with parallel barrels and thus forget the ideas of convergance or heat transfer.

I've seen O/U guns of this type but I can't say I ever noticed this on a rifle. For either type does anyone think this is workable? I contacted a European barrel maker about blanks for a shotgun project and it turns out they have double rifle blank sets of O/U or SxS form.

The barrel set with out ribs between them has been done Blazer is made that way, with barrel adjustments, then the space between them is filled with a space age plastic snap in ribs. UGLY AS HELL!

quote:

My guess is that mid-barrel and end of barrel fastenings could be somehow adjusted to bring them on target at a certain range (allowing for the shot or bullet types).

As I said above this has been done many times, on many makes VALMET/TIKA comes to mind.

quote:

I have no use for a true close-range double rifle as I have no dedicated need for it and the usual sight ranges are set too short. But I would like to make (in whole or part) such an item just for the sake of art and technology.

Technology???? People have been trying these shortcuts for 200 yrs, and still the only real way to build a double rifle is the way it is done, by hand, and regulated through trial and error!

Because barrels converge doesn't mean they are limited to short range shooting, because though the barrels physically converge, doesn't mean the shots cross at any range, they shoot paralell. Only the sights are filed in for a particular range, not the barrel regulation. All the sights do is place your bullets on target at a particular range! This is no different than any other rifle, the sights are set to the range you want, on any rifle, but that doesn't mean the rifle is not accurate past that point! The heat transfer only effects the regulation on occasion if the barrels are not fired in proper seguince, and harmonics play no roll at all, with full length ribs. The way the rifle moves under recoil is what regulation works with, useing barrel time(the length of time the bullet is in the barrel relative to the recoil movement, of the rifle), place the barrel being fired at a particular place, when the bullet leaves the muzzle, that is side by side with the position firing of the other barrel, place it! IOW, side by side, or paralell.

Your regulation with jack screws at muzzle, and mid point still have to be regulated, and the lack of ribs is of no value at all, but would cause a effect of harmonics on a double rifle. whether it is tied to the other barrel at muzzle, and mid point, or full length,you still have one barrel influanceing the other's movement. Because the regulation, after it is completed needs to be permenant anyway, the only thing gained by not haveing ribs is less money spent, and the increase of other negatives, such as the harmonics thing.

After reading your post, with the last sentence of your post,I believe you are assumeing that your OPINION, that double rifles are only good for short range, is true,.........SORRY, but that idea is not true!

I believe, at the other end of this project, you will be a very unhappy man, with a quite a few less dollars in his pocket, and a fire arm that will be no better than espensive scrap iron!
When you get into this project, I predict, you will become aware, very quickly, why double rifles cost more than bolt rifles! I think you would be better served by simply shelling out that money and buying yourself a double rifle, or stick to bolt rifles! Just my opinion, and worth exactly what you paid for it!

Too many delusional tech projects guarantee lots of thought and not enough finished work. I'm giving away pump and other guns for use as refurbished door prizes on Tac site shoots to relieve myself of trying to do everything at once.

I like double trigger guns and am particularly critical of grip shape, front trigger curve and placement and the hinge angle of the second trigger. After this I look at the receiver to forearm line and how that mates to the diameter (gauge) of the barrel and its length. This has nothing to do with shooting such a gun except on "ceremonial" occasions. It's more an issue of design art.

Older British common doubles on the net look like hastily improvised 18th century woodland Indian war clubs. I appreciate good lines in a double and as well some of the ingenious workarounds for the top lever. One funny idea was to have separate levers for everything including individually cocking ejectors. Then you could take careful aim at a major shoot picnic and with malice aforethought drop an empty right into someone's potato salad like a mortar round.

I'll stick with chopping and sawing on expendable spare parts and, as is the case now, leave the double work to people who have the experience and training for the particular problem. I have a sinking feeling I am going to be spending lots of time mailing guns and parts. Other people speak of scores and I will be the authority on who does what the best.

quote:

Originally posted by f.s. piekarczyk:
Too many delusional tech projects guarantee lots of thought and not enough finished work. I'm giving away pump and other guns for use as refurbished door prizes on Tac site shoots to relieve myself of trying to do everything at once.

I like double trigger guns and am particularly critical of grip shape, front trigger curve and placement and the hinge angle of the second trigger. After this I look at the receiver to forearm line and how that mates to the diameter (gauge) of the barrel and its length. This has nothing to do with shooting such a gun except on "ceremonial" occasions. It's more an issue of design art.

Older British common doubles on the net look like hastily improvised 18th century woodland Indian war clubs. I appreciate good lines in a double and as well some of the ingenious workarounds for the top lever. One funny idea was to have separate levers for everything including individually cocking ejectors. Then you could take careful aim at a major shoot picnic and with malice aforethought drop an empty right into someone's potato salad like a mortar round.

I'll stick with chopping and sawing on expendable spare parts and, as is the case now, leave the double work to people who have the experience and training for the particular problem. I have a sinking feeling I am going to be spending lots of time mailing guns and parts. Other people speak of scores and I will be the authority on who does what the best.

..................HUH??????????????

If that post was designed to confuse, you did a bang up job! Congratulations!