|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,615
Posts547,021
Members14,427
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
I'm not aware of anyone doing it, but, IMO, heat shrinking the tubes into the stubs makes the most sense. I should be quite possible to machine a diametral step into the stub (smaller diameter forward) and matching one on the tube. Thermal expansion is relatively easy to control and the stubs raised to boiling water temperature while the tubes are "frozen" in ice water would make a 180 oF difference. If trade workmen can control diameters to allow known force fits, they can surely also do it for a shrink fit. I've never done it, so this is an IMO.
DDA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,534 Likes: 93
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,534 Likes: 93 |
Any thing is possible but I can see problems with this idea. It was suggested some years back that this was tried shrinking the tubes in liquid nitrogen as I understand railway wheels are shrunk to fit tires, but as there is a difference in the cross section across the backends cooling will take place at a uncontrolled rate . Point is with tried and tested methods in every day use why bother ? Over the last 50 years I would think just abut every possibility has been explored by all manner of people in all Countries and I have yet to see a method of sleeving that is better than either tinning or welding for cost, effectivity ,practicality and reliability .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,880 Likes: 16
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,880 Likes: 16 |
Don,
When I worked at a race engine cylinder head company, I had to make an adapter for a flow bench. I turned a step on a large tube and also the mirror image of it in the bore of a large flange. Essentially, it was tongue and groove. There was a .010" interference in that big adapter. It was all aluminum and about 5" dia at the fit line. When I heated the flange and froze the tube, there was a visible sloppy fit when assembling them.
Last edited by Chuck H; 01/11/13 04:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 778 Likes: 36
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 778 Likes: 36 |
Fletchedpair,
You are quite correct. When the sleeving process was in development, the 'inventor' made up a sleeved gun with nothing but a push fit to hold the barrels into their stubs and soldered together at the muzzles. This fired many cartridges without budging at all.
Apparently, the sleeving tubes behave in a similar way to a modern cartridge, they expand into the breech stubs and lock themselves in place during the firing of the cartridge.
I have had numerous guns TIG sleeved and, as with Gunman's comments, can only speak from experience: none have moved, cracked or done anything unexpected. My main personal gun is a sleeved Blanch back action SLE. It was soft solder sleeved (by Westley Richards) and movement was detectable at the breech in the form of beads of oil when the barrels were flexed. However it never moved outwards. I had it TIG sleeved for aesthetic reasons and have never looked back.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,553
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,553 |
Wigshooter16
thanks for your massive & informative input on the real nuts n bolts issues of this interesting thread.As it says in you bottom blurb..you are obviously one tolerant dude, eh?? But not tolerant enough to let a spelling cock up slip by. I absolutely spell Breech incorrectly at least half the time,does it really fuckin matter ?
All i can say in return to you "Aluminium" mate
frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
