Rifling. How hard?

F. Guffey

New member
there was a practice at one time of building a broach that had 5 cutters in a single head, but it wasn't particularly efficient.

And then one day they started forging barrels with the rifling. Seems Remington purchases the design from a man called Hamilton. Hamilton also used liners, Hamilton was big on 22 rifles.

F. Guffey
 

F. Guffey

New member
The main complicating factor is how much money you want to spend. Like Scorch says, the actual machining isn't terribly complicated, if you have the right machine.
Assuming it's an existing .32 cal handgun barrel that's worn out, it's already over .32 calibre. That'd be .312"- .314" groove diameter.

First: Find the sleeve then determine the outside diameter of the sleeve and then find a reamer, I believe you can find the reamer at the same place you found the sleeve. And then there are pluses and minuses, I do not recommend burnishing but when bushings were sold in the old days some came in one size.

F. Guffey
 

briandg

New member
Jim, I know that smith and wesson broached barrels, but there was the problem of having to continually repair one cutter of five, instead of a single cutter on a regular device. That's why so many other companies existed that didn't do it. Because the time of running the cutter five times wasn't worth the extra effort of not only creating the thing in the first place, but keeping the cutters maintained.

Came from a gunsmithing book by james howe, I believe.

BTW, probably most of you can realize that regular single cutter rifling wouldn't have any disadvantage over a gang cut rifling. it would take huge abnormalities in the cutting tools to make a bullet so asymetrical that it would affect the flight path. Using a broach never made sense to me. swaged was a huge improvement over cut as far as economy of set up and speed of use, I don't know if hammer forging offers any advantages to others as far as accuracy, but once again, that wasn't easy to create equipment for.
 
Last edited:

Jim Watson

New member
Well, broaching obviously made sense to the manufacturers that do it.

Most aftermarket target rifle barrels are cut rifled. I think the cutters are likely better than what Springfield used in "scrape rifling" the 1903 NM barrels. I think there are some WWII era Pratt and Whitney machines still powering those cutters, but the trend is to new equipment purpose built or based on a lathe.

Some very good barrels are button rifled.

A lot of factory barrels are hammer forged and seem to be doing very well.
 

Gunplummer

New member
The single cut broach only takes about .001-.0015 material at a pass. There are muzzle loader guys in PA that still do it. I am thinking that with the steel that was used when broaching was popular, it was probably necessary. Take a barrel from the 40's or 50's and drop it on a cement floor. It rings. Most of the new barrels sound dead when they hit. That is because they add lead and sulpher to the steel to make it machine easier. Think about when you thread a new barrel. It looks like ledloy, all shiny and greasy. Now take a cut on an old barrel.

Take a good look at a pre 1920 Military barrel. It is truley impressive when you think of what they were using to drill them.
 

briandg

New member
It ma sound ridiculous, but I am easy to impress. The general population walks around in a fog of boredom regarding the wondrous things around them.

If a half million people, nothing really special, just the average blue collar workers, were dropped into a place without tools, what would happen? Even if they had the entire knowledge base of the planet available, some tools, materials, simple equips, how long would it be before the first cell phone was invented?

It impresses me greatly that someone could make a fluted drill bit with a hammer and anvil, and eventually after many decades, use those primitive beginnings to create what we have.
 

tangolima

New member
The single cut broach only takes about .001-.0015 material at a pass.

I think it is much less than that each pass. .308 barrel has 0.004" groove depth. I think it will take more than 4 passes to cut one. 0.00025" to 0.0005" sounds more reasonable.

-TL
 

Gunplummer

New member
You could be right. I have sharpened multiple tooth broaches and the difference between cutting edges is about .001-.0015. The limited area for the chip displacement has a lot to do with that. With a single tooth broach, I don't know.
 

Gunplummer

New member
Guffey, I think I still have a Hamilton .22 somewhere. I bought it at a Fleamarket for $7. I thought it was a BB gun. It had the large tube like a BB gun with a .22 liner in it. It was missing the bolt and I saw something weird up the barrel, so I pulled it apart. The liner was sheet metal that was roll pressed around a rifled mandrel and then turned off the mandrel. There was a split in the liner. The guns were supposed to be .22 short only(And maybe black powder for all I know)and I think somebody went bigger and cracked the liner. I don't even know if you would call it a liner. It was a barrel with no support other than at each end.
 

Gunplummer

New member
I looked on the rifle and it is a model #47. I know I still have the barrel, but not sure where right now and no time to look for it. Definitely an odd looking thing.
 

darkgael

New member
For now

Relining does not appear feasible right now. Liners are 1/2 inch in diameter....that is the outside diameter of the barrel.
So...for now, here is what I have done for ammo....apparently, the outside lubed bullet, a heeled bullet, was replaced by an inside lubed bullet of smaller diameter (.299-.300). What I did was swage some .32 buckshot down to .308" and seated them over a case of FFg BP.
They work, at least they function.
 

darkgael

New member
Function

When I wrote that it worked in my last post, I had fired one shot.
I loaded up a few more rounds as described and shot five at a target while at the range. Keeping in mind that this little gun is meant for "over the table" or up close and personal last ditch defense, I fired the five at a distance of 3 yards.
The group: the high shot was the first
 
Top