AOG breechloader

Just a question for you gun wizzards... What if any drawbacks is the Temple going to experience using iron in their St. Klymans rather than going to steel (which they can't produce in sufficient quanity for their needs)?

Don

I understand that the temple's breach loader is a fine weapon, but the problem as I see it is that they will not have enough of them. IIRC the RDA will have maybe 12000 and the Harchong army will have about 15000. Not enough now and when the M96 hits the front they will be even further behind. Then there is the doctrine for the use of breach loaders which the temple has not developed yet. Then smokeless powder is not too far down the line along with true high explosives, and when the temple steals how to make smokeless powder (its the only way the have even a chance to stay close) then I expect them to have some real problems with the use of iron in their rifle designs. Should make for an interesting read.

Hi Iranuke,

HFQ will definitely be an interesting read.

Actually, the GHoGatA will have 90,000 St Kylmahn's not 15,000 if delivery schedules are met.

You're quite right we have no evidence that the GHoGatA has caught up tactically with the ICA, so we can expect lots of casualties from long range rifle fire when they meet in a couple month's or so, by which time the M96's should have arrived and been distributed.

I'd expect a large mortar (~120 mm size) might be a weapon quickly introduced after cordite makes it very possible for its rate of fire and HE shell fraction, very helpful for the rather lean RSA artillery.

L

iranuke wrote:I understand that the temple's breach loader is a fine weapon, but the problem as I see it is that they will not have enough of them. IIRC the RDA will have maybe 12000 and the Harchong army will have about 15000. Not enough now and when the M96 hits the front they will be even further behind. Then there is the doctrine for the use of breach loaders which the temple has not developed yet. Then smokeless powder is not too far down the line along with true high explosives, and when the temple steals how to make smokeless powder (its the only way the have even a chance to stay close) then I expect them to have some real problems with the use of iron in their rifle designs. Should make for an interesting read.

n7axw wrote:Just a question for you gun wizzards... What if any drawbacks is the Temple going to experience using iron in their St. Klymans rather than going to steel (which they can't produce in sufficient quanity for their needs)?

Don

The quality of their iron isn't the issue. According to what RFC has already said both here and in previous books, Safehold is actually far head of the curve on quality of steel they are capable of making. They are actually about even with late 19th- early 20th Century in what they produce. That puts them about 50 years ahead of Earth, metallurgically speaking, when we started messing around with breechloaders in any quantity and about 30 years ahead of us from when large bore rifles carrying self contained cartridges were developing. The Temple's problem isn't a quality issue, it's making steel of the proper quality in the mass quantity that they need.

As long as they are using black powder, they can actually get away with skimping a little on steel quality. Their problem is that they don't have OWL whispering in the right ears to keep them from screwing up long term. Charis can design their M96 rifle with the idea of eventually using self contained cartridges using black powder AND smokeless ammunition in it while the Temple is just building what they think they need to get even with what's on the battlefield at the moment. The Ferguson action they are building now is a technological dead end. It faded into history back in the late 1700's on Earth for a reason. When the self contained cartridge makes an appearance in the next book, they are right back at square 1 and are going to have to do a 'Wrong! Do Over!' sort of rethink on their rifles. Charis can build something once and use it for longer than the Temple is going to use their new rifles. Rifle cartridges as big and powerful as what we are talking about (.577/450 Martini-Henry, .577 Snider, .50-70 Government, or any of the European military cartridges in the 9.5 to 11.5 mm range from the early 1870's- they look weak comparing them to modern cartridges but they were the top performers for their time), you aren't going to want to screw up the guns shooting them even with BP as the propellent. Once smokeless comes into play, the pressures go up and the wiggle room in steel quality shrinks dramatically. RFC has mentioned that the Remington Rolling Block (a hugely popular single shot action that sold well everywhere except in the US) may come into play 'somewhere, sometime' and a Roller is about as simple a breechloading action as you can come up with. No doubt it's robust enough, it was used with some of the most powerful sporting and military cartridges of the era.

I, personally, like the Browning designed Winchester 1885 'High Wall' action better because it's as simple or simpler as the Remington along with superior lock time and it made the transition to smokeless with only changes in the metallurgy not the design but this is Mr. Weber's fantasy and things tend to go his way for some reason.

jtg452 wrote:

n7axw wrote:Just a question for you gun wizzards... What if any drawbacks is the Temple going to experience using iron in their St. Klymans rather than going to steel (which they can't produce in sufficient quanity for their needs)?

Don

The quality of their iron isn't the issue. According to what RFC has already said both here and in previous books, Safehold is actually far head of the curve on quality of steel they are capable of making. They are actually about even with late 19th- early 20th Century in what they produce. That puts them about 50 years ahead of Earth, metallurgically speaking, when we started messing around with breechloaders in any quantity and about 30 years ahead of us from when large bore rifles carrying self contained cartridges were developing. The Temple's problem isn't a quality issue, it's making steel of the proper quality in the mass quantity that they need.

As long as they are using black powder, they can actually get away with skimping a little on steel quality. Their problem is that they don't have OWL whispering in the right ears to keep them from screwing up long term. Charis can design their M96 rifle with the idea of eventually using self contained cartridges using black powder AND smokeless ammunition in it while the Temple is just building what they think they need to get even with what's on the battlefield at the moment. The Ferguson action they are building now is a technological dead end. It faded into history back in the late 1700's on Earth for a reason. When the self contained cartridge makes an appearance in the next book, they are right back at square 1 and are going to have to do a 'Wrong! Do Over!' sort of rethink on their rifles. Charis can build something once and use it for longer than the Temple is going to use their new rifles. Rifle cartridges as big and powerful as what we are talking about (.577/450 Martini-Henry, .577 Snider, .50-70 Government, or any of the European military cartridges in the 9.5 to 11.5 mm range from the early 1870's- they look weak comparing them to modern cartridges but they were the top performers for their time), you aren't going to want to screw up the guns shooting them even with BP as the propellent. Once smokeless comes into play, the pressures go up and the wiggle room in steel quality shrinks dramatically. RFC has mentioned that the Remington Rolling Block (a hugely popular single shot action that sold well everywhere except in the US) may come into play 'somewhere, sometime' and a Roller is about as simple a breechloading action as you can come up with. No doubt it's robust enough, it was used with some of the most powerful sporting and military cartridges of the era.

I, personally, like the Browning designed Winchester 1885 'High Wall' action better because it's as simple or simpler as the Remington along with superior lock time and it made the transition to smokeless with only changes in the metallurgy not the design but this is Mr. Weber's fantasy and things tend to go his way for some reason.

Thanks for the nice post... But textev suggests that Temple won't be able to use steel for barrels because it isn't available to them in sufficient quantity. My question is what is penalty for using iron in place of steel for barrels. when the stuff gets hot, does it warp, get droopy? Does it wear out the rifling in the barrel? What?

I remember when I was young and not wise about 40 yrs ago, I purchased a 30-30 Winchester from Walmart. The thing couldn't hit a barn door with a scoop shovel full of rice! Then I bought as 30-30 Marlin and could consistently hit a bull about the size of an apple at 200 yards. This is the sort of thing that I would like someone more knowledgeable than I to comment on.

Thanks!

Don

n7axw wrote:
Thanks for the nice post... But textev suggests that Temple won't be able to use steel for barrels because it isn't available to them in sufficient quantity. My question is what is penalty for using iron in place of steel for barrels. when the stuff gets hot, does it warp, get droopy? Does it wear out the rifling in the barrel? What?

I remember when I was young and not wise about 40 yrs ago, I purchased a 30-30 Winchester from Walmart. The thing couldn't hit a barn door with a scoop shovel full of rice! Then I bought as 30-30 Marlin and could consistently hit a bull about the size of an apple at 200 yards. This is the sort of thing that I would like someone more knowledgeable than I to comment on.

Thanks!

Don

I don't think the barrels are going to get hot enough to warp or droop. For one, the maximum rate of fire isn't nearly as high as an automatic, semi-automatic, or even a bolt-action would be. Secondly, I think I have seen mention that after about 60 rounds or so fouling will start to be a problem and the rifle will need to be cleaned. The pause to clean the rifle would allow any heat to dissipate.
*edited once

I think the answer has been the subject of a lengthy set of posts in other threads, In short, an iron barrel tends to be brittle as well as having less strength. For the loads they are currently using the St Kylman won't have any problems they are not already having with the muzzleloader. If it survives the pressures as a muzzleloader, it will survive similar loads as a breech loader. The problems are that 1) due to the brittleness and hard inclusions they may lose some rifles in conversion if that barrel has inclusions where they are trying to drill and tap the new breech and 2) when smokeless powders become available, the St Kylman will have to be downloaded with the new powders and not take advantage of the higher pressures and/or velocities the new powders could provide because the iron might burst as too many of the Desnarian iron cannon already do.

One of the advantages of the M96 is that the steel it is using has already been proven to take the higher pressures and longer impulses that the new powder will be able to provide, so it can increase its range and the energy of the projectile when the powders change, it won't be limited to black powder equivalent loads - the St Kylman will.

ksandgren wrote:I think the answer has been the subject of a lengthy set of posts in other threads, In short, an iron barrel tends to be brittle as well as having less strength. For the loads they are currently using the St Kylman won't have any problems they are not already having with the muzzleloader. If it survives the pressures as a muzzleloader, it will survive similar loads as a breech loader. The problems are that 1) due to the brittleness and hard inclusions they may lose some rifles in conversion if that barrel has inclusions where they are trying to drill and tap the new breech and 2) when smokeless powders become available, the St Kylman will have to be downloaded with the new powders and not take advantage of the higher pressures and/or velocities the new powders could provide because the iron might burst as too many of the Desnarian iron cannon already do.

One of the advantages of the M96 is that the steel it is using has already been proven to take the higher pressures and longer impulses that the new powder will be able to provide, so it can increase its range and the energy of the projectile when the powders change, it won't be limited to black powder equivalent loads - the St Kylman will.

I think the St Kylman will be the last generation of weapon the Temple produces during this war, and I doubt they'll be able to produce smokeless powder anytime soon, so longer-term issues won't be a problem.

jms

ksandgren wrote:I think the answer has been the subject of a lengthy set of posts in other threads, In short, an iron barrel tends to be brittle as well as having less strength.

There are three types of iron in play here,

1) Mallable cast iron that is heat treated and less brittle than regular cast iron.

2) Cast iron that cracks in tension and is brittle. Made direct from ore in a blast furnace with no intermediate steps thus cheap.

3) Wrought iron that is not brittle used for small caliber barrels, IE shoulder arms. Made in as bloom iron a batch process, from cast iron pigs in finery forge, or removing the carbon in cast iron using a puddling furnace. Thus more expensive. Early steel was blister steel made by putting a little carbon back in wrought iron by heating it in an air tight box in carbon, thus another step the most expensive. Wrought iron is soft compared to cast iron unless case hardened see above process to make blister steel that puts steel on the outer surface.

The Civil war Parrot rifle (rifled cannon) used cast iron with a ring of wrought iron heat shrunk on the breach just what David describes.

Poker

I've just finished another reread of On Basilisk Station and I noticed that the Ferguson rifle was used by the Peeps as a model for the rifle built for the Medusans / Stilties. RFC seems to have a penchant for the Ferguson rifle