Has anyone ever made a two piece rifle barrel?

make the first section then the second, rifle them as one unit, make reference marks and bam! Dream come true I guess I don't really know, there is bound to be more to it. I'd make the second section a squeeze bore and call it little john, I hope you get it mooncoon. I don't think a bullet would remember it being off in the middle if its given a squeeze later on. As well there would be a lot of bulk for the overlap of thread and tools will most likely be required basically ruining what advantages there is for it. Also legality? You'd need to fit it with a probe or cleaning rod that engages a safety in the receiver from the foremost barrel section so in theory you could argue its inoperable without being fully assembled... cough. The best advise on this is to do you own homework!
All in all I like the idea of crazy ideas to learn things first hand and improving on technologies but this might be a bit of to much work not enough reward and the terrible "it's cheaper and better to buy off the shelf"

ps i'm not one for spelling so please have mercy!
 
Mercy Given. :)

About the legality of this, that will be another thread as there would be obsticles due to the short barrel if second piece not attached. Let's park that part.

I am thinking that this would even be possible without a threaded join by creating a join that would make one piece slide in to the next with a locking device ala a second takedown system.

Call it a double takedown. :)

Lookie, lookie... Imagine the suppressor as barrel extension and a fold away or takedown system for stock:

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=6&f=47&t=341049

Fold away stock:

folding-rifle-stock.jpg
 
Last edited:
Interesting concept, I figure your biggest problem is going to be pressure in the threads.

Likely the best option would be to machine and thread two barrels together and rifle them afterwards.

Ideal setup would be something like interrupted threads on the connection for a fast takedown, with some kind of clamp system to stop it from coming loose.

Long story short, it is not a practical idea at all, you are better off with either a short barrel that will fit where you need it to fit, or a long barrel that you keep somewhere separate like a pack or case, and you reorganize your storage space to accommodate.
 
We can't do this anyway. With a two piece barrel there's no way to prevent it being able to fire with only the root extension. And that would be too short a barrel by our laws unless done by the maker. And if the stock also breaks down into parts it would need to be in a way that makes it impossible to put together the two middle parts and get a fireable gun that is less than 26 inches.

So all in all our laws make this a non starter near as I can see. And even in the US if the first two pieces form a short but fireable combination it would likely fall under their SBR definition.
 
Technically possible, to be sure. Gerald Bull's massive Iraqi cannon (about 1 m bore) had sectioned barrels. OK, they were not quick-detach and were smoothbore, but the technical challenge of containing pressure is hardly impossible. Precision alignment of rifling could also be done, with sufficiently accurate engineering and machining.

Back to common sense however, I agree with those above who say it's not worth the effort. Save it for Hollywood, along with 27-shot Colt Peacemakers and thumb-size suppressors.
 
I'm told that Smith and Wesson revolving rifles were manufactured as 2 rifled barrels timed and joined together as Smith and Wesson's barrel making equipment was set up for about 12" maximum.

I have seen a .22 rifle which was accidently cut below the legal minimum, the repairer threaded the 2 cut pieces back together and timed the rifling so that it perfectly matched and mated.

The barrel lost about 1"-2" length to the repair.
 
The last few posts don't have much in common with the take down feature required by the original poster.
 
Its only metal so its doable. Sealing the pressure is no issue if done right.
I don't see it being that practical or worth the time though.
 
SND said:
Its only metal so its doable. Sealing the pressure is no issue if done right.
I don't see it being that practical or worth the time though.
Click to expand...

Would you care to explain how it is 'doable'. The 'take down' joint of this barrel needs to seal off 50,000 psi and still be easily taken apart in the field without tools... I think everyone will concede a joint could be made with the rifling lining up and sealing off the pressure... but no one can design that joint in which it can be taken apart without tools in the field... as in 'take down'. That is the 'stump' in everyone's answers.
 
guntech said:
Would you care to explain how it is 'doable'. The 'take down' joint of this barrel needs to seal off 50,000 psi and still be easily taken apart in the field without tools... I think everyone will concede a joint could be made with the rifling lining up and sealing off the pressure... but no one can design that joint in which it can be taken apart without tools in the field... as in 'take down'. That is the 'stump' in everyone's answers.
Click to expand...

Just to start an argument, how do come up with 50,000 PSI at the joint 10 inches from the chamber? In the chamber, yes...

I believe there is a reason why metal is thicker around the chamber and tapered from there, if 50,000 PSI all the way to the muzzle well then barrels would be over 1 inch diameter to the muzzle.
 
Hmm, idle thoughts but the only ideas I've got are for a bullpup style where the barrel would be reinforced by the receiver...but that kind of gets rid of the takedown benefit of reduced OAL.

Sort of like an external version of the special ammo designed for 3D printed plastic guns, where the case is made of steel and essentially functions as a chamber sleeve to help contain pressure.
 
NL-Hunter said:
Just to start an argument, how do come up with 50,000 PSI at the joint 10 inches from the chamber? In the chamber, yes...

I believe there is a reason why metal is thicker around the chamber and tapered from there, if 50,000 PSI all the way to the muzzle well then barrels would be over 1 inch diameter to the muzzle.
Click to expand...

Chamber pressure can easily run 65,000 psi depending on the cartridge... and in 3 inches does not drop much... I don't know what the pressure may be only 10 inches from the bolt face... but I know a take down joint is folly.
 
guntech said:
Would you care to explain how it is 'doable'. The 'take down' joint of this barrel needs to seal off 50,000 psi and still be easily taken apart in the field without tools... I think everyone will concede a joint could be made with the rifling lining up and sealing off the pressure... but no one can design that joint in which it can be taken apart without tools in the field... as in 'take down'. That is the 'stump' in everyone's answers.
Click to expand...

You're focusing entirely on the wrong thing, pressure is only part of the energy calculation required to figure the actual mechanical requirements.
Next thing you know the forces are all relatively low and it can all be hand tightened, the only reason to want a tool would be to make sure it can't rattle loose after many shots but there's other ways to deal with that.
 
The wheel:

Is everywhere on all our cars, trains, planes, machines, wagons, and most factory and farm equipment. What could we move without wheels? But as important as the wheel is as an invention, we don't know who exactly made the first wheel.

The oldest wheel found in archeological excavations was discovered in what was Mesopotamia and is believed to be over fifty-five hundred years old. No "Take Down" wheels that require no tools to take them down have survived.

The rifled barrel:
Has been around for about 500 years.
The inventor of a rifled barrel is alleged to be one of two inventors, both of them German-speaking. According to The Gun and its Development, one was Gaspard Kollner of Vienna, sometime in the 15th century, others allege that his grooves were straight in nature and the first spiral grooves came from Augustus Kotter of Nuremberg in 1520.
Perhaps in another 5000 years there will be no surviving examples of "2 piece take down rifle barrels" either.

This thread has gone off the rails. :runaway::runaway::runaway:

good bye :wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom