Rifle a smoothbore???

Oh, oh, I'm thinking again. I gotta stop that, it's a nasty habit.
But I was wondering if my G.M drop in unit .62 smoothie could be rifled?
Yes I know it wouldn't be a smoothbore anymore, but it would be a heck of a bog bore rifle. Wonder is there is enough metal in the G.M to take rifling safely?

 

[Rocky Johnson]

Wouldn't it be more prudent to see if you could get a rifled drop in an keep the smoothbore the way it is? Rocky /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[musketman]

How much metal is between the bore and the outer flats of the barrel now?

Then subtract the depth of the riflings from that number...

Say (example only) that there is .250" of metal on barrel wall thickness, now you want .010" deep riflings, so that would leave you with a barrel wall thickness of .240" at it's thinnest points...

No big deal except where the barrel is dove-tailed, then you may encounter some really thin spots... :shocking:

 

nonononono- rifle it no more than 4 or 5 thousanths deep and at a rate 90" per turn. The ball won't strip & will be more accurate, the more powder you put in it. It will also allow a fairly large ball, with thin patch and no destruction of the ball's surface for much better down range ballistics. READ Forsyth's little book.
: Remember the large bores develope very little pressure compared to the small bores. Check the Lyman book for a VERY DRAMATIC illustration of this great difference. EVEn the jump from .54 to .58 made an incredible drop in pressure, especially with 2F.
Daryl

 

[cayugad]

There was some talk, and I forget which company I was talking to, but they were saying that Green Mountain Barrel Co. was thinking of making a 1:70 .62 caliber with a 32" barrel in the future. I almost did not buy my .58 caliber because of that then figured, why not... I deserved all of them... :: When they make such a creature I am going to get one for sure. If not, I am thinking in terms of a .75 caliber. I like big bore guns.

 

Perhaps a word of caution about big bore rifles.
: The .69, as suggested by Forsyth WAS about the ultimate due to ball weight/recoil/charge/trajectory. We found with my buddy Keith's .75 rifle, that to achieve the flat trajectory I got with my .69, he had to use well over 200gr. 2F with the 630gr. round ball. This was a bit rough in a 9 or 9 1/2 pound rifle.
; Forsyth was right-on with the .69's bore being right. The 16 bore, or .66 cal.(.648"ball) could match the .69's flattness or travel, but the extra, 80gr. of ball & increased bore size of the .69(.684"ball) did show on the large game of India. I presume here, the .66 or 16 bore would make a slightly better rifle for North AMerica, both having a ball of good weight, and of descent size. At 405gr. weight at .648" or .650", this would give a very flat trajectory and lots of killing power. I am, of course thinking of Moose, Elk, and BIG bear like o'le Ephram.