Wogdon's bent barrels

[colmoultrie]

Were Wogdon dueling pistols' barrels straight-tapered or swamped? I thought the only pair I've ever handled, those used by Lord Camelford (unsuccessfully) in a duel with Capt. Best, had swamped barrels, but it was over twenty years ago, and my memory might well be in error.

 

[hawkeye2]

The gun meets increasing resistance as it moves back which causes increasing muzzle rise but there is resistance to the rearward movement from the moment the bullet starts down the barrel and the muzzle begins its upward journey then. The muzzle has risen some before the bullet exits. It can be difficult to see in slow motion photography but it is there. The rearward momentum imparted to the gun continues after the bullet has left the barrel and it's at this time you see the majority of the muzzle rise. Newton's laws don't allow for a time lag, the reaction is as instantaneous as the action causing it. Just as the bullet is accelerating as it moves down the barrel the gun is also accelerating rearward as long as the bullet is in the barrel and exerting an equal and opposite force on the gun. The rearward (and in turn upward) acceleration of the gun is slow compared to the ball as its mass is absorbing a lot of the force acting on it.

 

[pargent]

Late dueling barrels were nearly always octagonal and straight ,early and we are back into my favorite Twigg duelers and dual purpose were tapered mostly two stage with the dual purpose ones being round and tapered .

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Many Wogdon barrels were swamped, some appear to have almost a straight taper. Most were octagon but the corners on some of those barrels were rounded almost to the point of creating a round barrel. Neal and Back suggest that John Twigg first made the octagon barrel popular in England for dueling pistols and eventually it was almost universally adopted by British makers. In the late 18th century and the 19th century, the barrels became more straight and heavier. I had the privilege of handling a number of English dueling pistols but most were from the 19th century with heavy barrels. I think they would be popular today with target shooters but I dislike how they feel in the hand because of the muzzle weight. I much prefer the earlier pistols with swamped barrels by Wogdon and Twigg. Those guns have life in them.

dave

 

[George]

The rearward (and in turn upward) acceleration of the gun is slow compared to the ball as its mass is absorbing a lot of the force acting on it.

Since the movements of the gun and the bullet are proportional to their weights, it is possible to calculate the actual distance the gun moves while the bullet is moving the length of the barrel. Using he example of a revolver weighing 40 ounces, a barrel of 4.2" and a bullet weighing 140 grains, what is the distance the gun moves? Zonie? Wandering physicist? Anyone?

Spence

 

[hawkeye2]

Spence, that's an easy calculation for anyone who has had Physics 101 but would only give one the recoil distance of an unrestrained gun. The actual amount of recoil would be dependent on the muscle/fat ratio of the shooter's hand, the angle of the wrist and forearm, their strength and so on. There would be a large variation between individuals and somewhat between shots by the same individual. I would imagine an experienced pistol shooter could spend an afternoon shooting and thinking and possibly come up with a factor to put into the equation so that he could roughly calculate and compare the restrained recoil of different pistols with different loads. For example, and this is only a WAG, might the shooter exert a force of 200 pounds that the pistol would have to overcome in recoil? Something else to take into consideration is that some of the recoil force is translated into rotational energy and that would vary greatly with the configuration of the pistol and also the shooter's grip. Will need to think about this more when I have time or after more coffee. :grin:

 

[TFoley]

We STILL don't have a definitive answer to the simple question.

What proof is there that Wogden actually intentionally BENT his barrels downwards, upwards, or any-wards, for ANY reason.

It STILL sounds totally wacky to me.

tac

 

[George]

It STILL sounds totally wacky to me.

To me, too, but then, that's the way everything seems, today.

Spence

 

[George]

Spence, that's an easy calculation for anyone who has had Physics 101 but would only give one the recoil distance of an unrestrained gun.

I do my best work when I establish the basics at the beginning. I think all the other complications are dependent on the recoil distance of the gun. With that in hand, maybe new ideas will pop up.

Spence

 

[dave_person]

Hi Tac,
The idea comes from a published paper given to the Royal Dublin Society in 1838 by William and John Rigby in the early 1800s showing how they, Manton, and Wogdon solved the problem of the line of sight not being parallel with the bores of the tapered or swamped pistol barrels used on dueling pistols, which tended to shoot high at 12 yards. It was not an advertisement and presumably was researched by the Rigbys. A reproduction of a figure from it is shown on page 55 of John Atkinson's book "The British Duelling Pistol". What I don't understand, is why not simply make the front sight taller?

dave

 

[steam1993]

I guess I'm wrong. What I read a LONG time ago is that English dueling pistols were smooth bore without sights to allow Providence to take a hand in duels. In other words, if a duelist missed, especially if both missed, satisfaction had been reached. The code of the duel in America I believe required smooth bore pistols. Otherwise, it was murder.

Dueling was a gentleman's occupation in England. French dueling pistols (I read) were rifled and designed to kill rather than reach satisfaction.

I know a lot (or some) duels were fired two or more times without drawing blood.

Must rember that next time I have a duel with MN Captin Jack Sparrow. We both missed, ok so we were using blanks but it still looked good.

 

[pargent]

 

[pargent]

 

[pargent]

 

[pargent]

 

[pargent]

Top is BOND
Brass is WALLACE
1/2 Stock is LANG
All are straight ,octagonal , smoothbore 50-52 cal.
All three sets have been used

 

[TFoley]

Apart from the brass Wallace, which appears to be very slightly swamped, they otherwise look pretty straight to me.

Perhaps the late Mr Wogden perfected the art of making a STRAIGHT barrel, but drilled the bore pointing slightly downward? :surrender:

I've seen a modern, cheaper end of the market rifle like that, but I don't think that it was intentional. :idunno:

tac

 

[pargent]

I think Wogdon was having a bit of a lend of a few people

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
No, I don't think Wogdon was fooling anybody because as far as I know, he never advertised his "secret", if there was one. It was "outed" by Rigby. All people knew, was Wogdon's pistols were very accurate at dueling distances.

dave

 

[Tinker2]

I wouldn't want to insult Newton, for sure. I'm a big fan of his. I have no doubt the equal and opposite reaction occurs, but I believe it's possible the gun travels opposite to the direction of the bullet, in other words backward, first, as you would expect, and the muzzle only begins to move upward as a result of a pivoting action caused by the shape of the gun. After all, Newton does require an opposite reaction, and the bullet isn't traveling downward as it moves through the barrel.

But that's just armchair physics, subject to correction.

Does the third law require an upward movement?

Spence

I saw demo of a Thompson submachine gun hung on wires, it only moved back.


William