Dear Long Johns,
This isn’t the first time you’ve posted that picture of the Centaur cylinder (or one similar to it), I always notice the chamber mouths have been chamfered. I have always assumed that a sharp square mouth on the chamber was best and a generous yet gentle entrance angle (i.e. 11°) of the forcing cone was ideal.
We all know much of the efficiency and power of Black Powder is determined by how well it is compressed and how long the bullet resists moving. This allows the pressures of the relatively slow expanding BP to build and get the initial moment of the bullet up higher than it would be if it weren’t restrained before it started moving. This moment is important because it will determine how well the bullet continues to overcome the friction of the chamber, deals with the temporary expansion of the bullet as it bridges the gap, the obturation that takes place as the bullet enters the forcing cone, the re-swaging in the forcing cone and engraving by the rifling. Even though this isn’t part of my question it is obvious that the longer the bullet fully seals the chamber, the longer the pressure of the combusting powder has to build on the base of the bullet. As soon as the bullet breaches the edge of the cylindrical portion of the chamber, the gases will begin to expand from the axial path and become the cylinder gap blast we observe every time we shoot a normal revolver. If you consider the geometry of a ball it is even possible to have the ball in the gap with the base out of the chamber and not yet be engaged in the rifling of the barrel.
When I use correctly sized balls and seat them into the chambers I normally get a cut ring of lead, I want this and a healthy amount of deformation of the balls to maximize the contact patch on the chamber walls. I want this to assure resistance during the initial stages of combustion allowing the pressure to climb before the friction against the chamber walls and inertia of the bullet at rest is overcome.
I have noticed that fouling at the chamber mouth and the warm residual lube allows the ball to be seated easier and sometimes without cutting a ring of lead. There have even been cases when the ball actually came back out or pushed back as I retracted the loading lever ram. This never happens with a clean chamber. I have unseated one of these “slip fitting” balls by pushing from the rear after removing the tube and powder. When comparing this ball with another ball pushed out from a clean cylinder I noticed two things:
- The force required to push the dirty cylinder ball out was less than the clean cylinder.
- The contact ring patch looked similar in width on both projectiles. Under a microscope The contact patch on the ball from the dirty cylinder looked very smooth and swaged, the ball from the clean cylinder looked cut and sheared on the contact patch. I couldn’t measure a discernable difference with a micrometer, I would have to have a much larger population sample to make a statement about measured diameter.
However, I do have a hypothesis that the dirty cylinder ball actually has a film of lube or fouling between it and the chamber wall. This film may not only act as a lubricant but may actually make the bullet slightly smaller in diameter than the chamber wall.
Now after all of that lead up here are my questions to those of you that chamfer the front of your chamber mouths. Do you notice any decrease in velocity, a propensity for the balls to move in the unfired chambers under recoil or even the ball to push back up and follow the loading lever ram as it is lifted? I ask that because it seems reasonable that a chamber that cuts the bullet as it is loaded is going to maximize the contact area and pretty much assure there isn’t any residual lubricant or fouling between the engaging band and the chamber. Another question is whether or not you get a cut ring of lead from a ball as you seat it, or does the chamfer minimize it?
CAS loads are definitely not optimized and I can understand why chamfering may actually be a non-issue or simply outweigh any negatives they produce. I was just wondering if chamfered chambers have any more problems with bullet movement either during loading or under recoil.
Regards,
Mako