T/C Hawken smooth bore

[William]

I am not understanding what you mean when you say that you used a range rod to find that the chamber was clear?  Did you get a bore light down it to see what shape that was in?

[West Texan]

I had a range rod with a ball puller screw it went all the way to the bottom of the barrel. It must have a firing chamber that the guns ram rod would not reach into. It seemed that there might have been an obstruction but there was none.

[West Texan]

It is clearly smoothbore no rifling to be seen and the bore seems new.

[William]

I understand now, the chamber is somewhat smaller than the bore itself, probably to lend strength to the barrel.  Someone correct me if I'd wrong in my assumption, I'd rather know if my hunches are correct rather than pass on an inaccuracy.  Did you ever determine if it is a Green Mountain barrel?

[West Texan]

TC all the way., and no rifling. It's one of those guns i don't need.

[William]

Ah, now I see even more clearly.  It was worth investigating though, and sometimes you do find a diamond in the rough at a pawn shop.  Too bad this wasn't one of them.

[mongrel]

The sub-bore-sized chamber does in fact lend strength to the breechplug-barrel joining. The threaded breechplug shank is 11/16" diameter, and with threads cut into it and a .50 caliber hole punched through it there'd be not much more than 1/16" of solid metal around that hole. Of course the 15/16" diameter barrel into which the shank threads would add roughly 1/8" more metal around the chamber, but as it is there's a good mass of steel (about 5/16" thick when you combine the chamber and barrel walls) to withstand the pressure of the ignited powder starting a ball or bullet forward.

However, the primary purpose of the reduced-sized chamber isn't strength, but reliability and consistency of ignition. The basic idea is as old as firearms themselves. In the late 1700's, Joseph Manton, widely considered the best English gunmaker of his time and therefore in the running for having been the best gunmaker in the world, not only in his time but any other, patented a variation of the centuries-old idea that not only featured the smaller powder chamber but a breechplug relieved on its lock side to allow the lock mechanism to be inletted deeper into the stock -- the result being a slimmer firearm (especially important on double-barrelled guns and critically important on double-barrelled flinters) with first the pan of the lock and a few decades later the nipple situated closer to the powder charge. The term "patent breech" was quite naturally applied to this system and both T/C and Investarms utilize a modified version of Manton's original design.

The face of a T/C or Investarms plug is coned from chamber to bore diameter, so that it acts as a funnel for both the in-flowing powder during loading and the outward force of igniting powder as the gun fires. I don't know if the "true" patent breech face, as perfected by Manton, was similarly coned. If it's truly an advantage then I would bet it was, simply because betting against Manton's genius strikes me as a fool's game.

Now the source of ignition (priming powder or percussion cap) being nearer the powder charge I can understand in terms of improving ignition, but the physics of how the reduced-diameter chamber provides more reliable and consistent ignition are something I've never read up on and quite frankly do NOT understand. In case someone doesn't get what that implies -- I can't explain it and I can't very well argue the point if someone expresses doubt as to the effectiveness of the design. I know that both Manton brothers (John was the younger brother to Joseph and a top-ranked gunsmith in his own right) and most other leading gunsmiths of their time made use of the idea, and as stated earlier a fine Manton gun was as good as it ever got -- so obviously it must have worked.

[mongrel]

Ah, now I see even more clearly.  It was worth investigating though, and sometimes you do find a diamond in the rough at a pawn shop.  Too bad this wasn't one of them.

Still a diamond in the rough, just not everyone has the same taste in diamonds....

[William]

Ah, now I see even more clearly.  It was worth investigating though, and sometimes you do find a diamond in the rough at a pawn shop.  Too bad this wasn't one of them.

Still a diamond in the rough, just not everyone has the same taste in diamonds....

True enough; perhaps this is now a ruby or emerald in the rough?

The term "patent breech" was quite naturally applied to this system and both T/C and Investarms utilize a modified version of Manton's original design.

Gosh I am glad I posed this comment here on TMotC, and no sarcasm intended at all.  Not only did I learn something but it was explained to me in a way that didn't make me feel as if I was some kind of idiot, or told to just look up the patent breach design and it would all become clear; meantime don't bother us real forum members with your stupid questions. 
There are too many muzzle loading forums where the membership would have lit into me for making such an assumption, this is truly a special place. 

[mongrel]

For every one thing I (or anyone) knows, there's an infinity of things that we don't. It's not exactly a realization that ought to encourage arrogance....

Besides, as I said, though I know how and why it was done, I don't know how it works. Again -- under the circumstances arrogance wouldn't exactly be the right tone to take.

And, you know -- Golden Rule and all that nonsense....

[William]

Yep.

[HellBound]

From the testimony I would guess this is a bored smooth 45 barrel.

            P.A.

[prairieofthedog]

PA,that makes sense.Mystery solved,maybe LOL!

[Hank12]

P.A. , rebored .45 was my guess also.
Mongrel, are you sure about Manson? Nock invented the patent breech and patened it in April, 1757, said to improve ignition and increase velocity.
I haven't found better ignition or higher velocity from that type breech.  What I do see is a lot of folks getting poor ignition because the channel gets fouled and is hard to clean. I like the drum and nipple or the straight shot into the powder of the flint much better. Just my opinion, lot's of folks love the Patent  breech. H12

[mongrel]

P.A. , rebored .45 was my guess also.
Mongrel, are you sure about Manson? Nock invented the patent breech and patened it in April, 1757, said to improve ignition and increase velocity.
I haven't found better ignition or higher velocity from that type breech.  What I do see is a lot of folks getting poor ignition because the channel gets fouled and is hard to clean. I like the drum and nipple or the straight shot into the powder of the flint much better. Just my opinion, lot's of folks love the Patent  breech. H12

I took the info directly from a book dealing with antique firearms, primarily English -- but that may not prove a thing. The book is aimed primarily at collectors and the tone of the Foreword makes it plain that the authors consider the book's existence and the pictures and descriptions in it to be acceptable substitutes for actually being able to own, handle, or even view the actual guns. In other words, it seems to have been written by "experts" who are quite comfortable with the present-day English notion that gun ownership is an obsolete concept. That mentality doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in the correctness of any information they might offer.

So you may very well be right, and in fact I'm going to go on the assumption that your info is correct and mine is not.

I actually second your comment on the variation of the patent breech as produced by T/C and Investarms, as far as their reliability. And, so far as the originals go, be they Nock or Manton, Lang or Wogdon, whoever, I've never come across feedback on how well they actually performed. I know they're somewhat different from what T/C and Investarms call a patent breech. I think it's a safe assumption that, having been the chosen system on a large number of guns by some of the premiere gunmakers in the history of firearms, the system worked well -- but a safe assumption is still just that, an assumption.