|
Post by rikkochet on Oct 14, 2013 20:43:24 GMT
Grapeshot is considerable larger than the size usually fired from punt guns, it's been a while since I last saw a stand of grape but I recall they were at least 0.75" in diameter. Shot for punt guns is usually in the 0.17" to 0.2" range.
The larger the shot the less dense the pattern, and the punt gunner needed to get as many pellets as possible into the killing zone provided the retained energy is sufficient.
I think what we see in the video is the gunner loading a blank cartridge into the breech. This acts as a primer to ignite the main charge. The blanks are sealed with a card disc, not crimped, and the main cartridge (the guns shown appear to be breechloaders) are loaded into the gun prior to starting out. This method is far cheaper than making 'proper' cartridges for the gun. The same method is used to ignite the charge in large naval guns and ground artilery.
Digging a trench to the required depth and width is hardly difficult, the total volume would probably be less than the two pools they dug for the swimming in syrup myth. Of course, even if the trench was ten feet deep and twenty wide some 'expert' would claim they used the wrong type of water or that the boat was the wrong colour.
Chronographing the shot from a 1.5" gun would be difficult; the muzzle blast would disembowel a chronograph if it is too close the the muzzle, the shot charge emerges from a cloud of dense smoke so the screens have to be some distance from the muzzle, and if they are far enough away to record the velocity of the shot charge they are likely to be hit by stray pellets. Not an unsurmountable problem, though.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 14, 2013 20:58:35 GMT
I still think the canal/trench will work. It just needs to be deep/long/wide enough that the amount of water never becomes an issue. A platform on either side that goes over the trench can still keep the boat in place and ensure easy access. If you are going with the platform on either side route, then as Cyber suggested earlier, the lake is the cheapest and simplest way to go. The lake they used for "explosive surfing" or whatever it was called, would be perfect. we were talking about ground supported platforms, not floating platforms.
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Oct 14, 2013 21:11:53 GMT
If you are going with the platform on either side route, then as Cyber suggested earlier, the lake is the cheapest and simplest way to go. The lake they used for "explosive surfing" or whatever it was called, would be perfect. we were talking about ground supported platforms, not floating platforms. I know. It is a simpler matter to make two floating platforms, anchor them in place and proceed with experiment, versus, dig trench, water proof it, supply water, build two platforms, then proceed to experiment. Not to mention, the real lake eliminates ALL the possible clamouring of "you did it wrong" because of whatever reasons are brought up about the trench.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 14, 2013 21:16:50 GMT
Floating platforms, while workable, would make for more headaches in terms of planning. First because they would need to be transported to the site, then assembled, then disassembled at the end of filming. It would also limit them to the lake as a testing area.
A water-filled trench however removes most of the transportation and construction problems plus would allow them to consider other test locations if they had to, such as the quarry they've used for cannon myths after the mishap at the bomb range. The lake would be better, since they can take water straight from there rather than having to either bring in a tanker or use mains water.
Likewise a platform or small bridge that would allow easy access to the boat without having to get in it would be simplicity to make. All they need is some scaffolding and a couple of planks - that is stuff they already have lying around the shop. That would give them a working platform that they could move out of the way with ease between shots or put at the back of the trench and move the boat forward for testing.
Last of all a trench would make replacing the gun with something larger a lot easier, since they would not have to lift it onto the platform and the lift it into the boat. And as I noted before it also means that in the worst case scenario they don't have to try and recover a large heavy gun from the bottom of a lake - or explain to the owner how their formally pristine cannon was damaged from impacting the bottom of the lake.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 14, 2013 21:19:56 GMT
we were talking about ground supported platforms, not floating platforms. I know. It is a simpler matter to make two floating platforms, anchor them in place and proceed with experiment, versus, dig trench, water proof it, supply water, build two platforms, then proceed to experiment. Not to mention, the real lake eliminates ALL the possible clamouring of "you did it wrong" because of whatever reasons are brought up about the trench. fact of the matter is, videos already posted show the recoil moving the punt. and we will ALWAYS have a "you did it wrong because you didn't get the results I expected" response. since I don't have a dog in the fight, I'd say dig a trench a foot wider and a foot deeper than the punt and that's good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 14, 2013 21:28:09 GMT
The width and depth of the trench would depend in the size of the boat or boats they would be using, which in turn is probably going to depend on what size and weight of guns they can get access to or build for testing. A punt that is used for a punt gun would sink if you tried to put a six pound cannon into it, and might well capsize even with Tory's lighter 'cannon'. So if they can get a bigger cannon they will probably need to get a bigger boat.
Not that it would really matter if they are digging a trench, since its not going to take them that long using a digger.
I'd say four feet would be more than deep enough for such a trench - I doubt that anything they are likely to use would have anything close to that amount of draft while it is shallow enough to allow them to jump in wearing waders if they have to.
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Oct 14, 2013 22:38:46 GMT
Floating platforms, while workable, would make for more headaches in terms of planning. First because they would need to be transported to the site, then assembled, then disassembled at the end of filming. It would also limit them to the lake as a testing area. A water-filled trench however removes most of the transportation and construction problems plus would allow them to consider other test locations if they had to, such as the quarry they've used for cannon myths after the mishap at the bomb range. The lake would be better, since they can take water straight from there rather than having to either bring in a tanker or use mains water. Likewise a platform or small bridge that would allow easy access to the boat without having to get in it would be simplicity to make. All they need is some scaffolding and a couple of planks - that is stuff they already have lying around the shop. That would give them a working platform that they could move out of the way with ease between shots or put at the back of the trench and move the boat forward for testing. Last of all a trench would make replacing the gun with something larger a lot easier, since they would not have to lift it onto the platform and the lift it into the boat. And as I noted before it also means that in the worst case scenario they don't have to try and recover a large heavy gun from the bottom of a lake - or explain to the owner how their formally pristine cannon was damaged from impacting the bottom of the lake. The transportation of materials and assembly/disassembly, before and after filming is a non issue. It would have to be done no matter where they test. The use of the lake or a pond is in keeping with the "myth". So testing on a lake or pond is the perfect scenario for the most accurate test results and least amount of "you did it wrong because". If they choose to supersize it, it would be more than a mere larger cannon, it would be a larger cannon over charged for the biggest "oomph" to move the boat, as a simple larger cannon of size that could reasonably be expected to fire from a boat, is going to do little more than the punt gun, due to the extra added weight of the heavy gun that the recoil also then has to move. (as you also noted on page 1, the floating platform itself could be used as a test bed for cannon too large to fit a boat. Just don't over charge it) The owner of such a gun is not going to allow an over charged load to be fired, due to the risk of damage to the gun. So, it would be down to a "home" built cannon, which it wouldn't matter to the MB if they over charged it or not.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 14, 2013 23:15:29 GMT
well, up to a point
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 14, 2013 23:20:48 GMT
one thought: the benefit of doing an unmanned test is you eliminate about 200# of loading from the boat.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 15, 2013 7:04:15 GMT
Depth of pool, you are hunting ducks. They feed under the surface of the water, but do not dive..... mostly backside out of water. Therefore, they are found in the shallows. The craft would therefore be designed for shallow water, and have a shallow draught, minimal displacement.
Why test this in 8 ft of water when the boat was typically used in 8 inch of water?.. To show the thing is afloat, all you need is one waterproof camera....
From all video showm I can verify that the type of craft used was PBK type Canoe build as described before, that fully loaded, two adults and camping gear for a weeks trecking, would float in 1ft of water quite well.
I know this because at one point we were going over shallows and the paddles fouled on the shallows, and we measured the depth.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 15, 2013 11:50:53 GMT
Depth of pool, you are hunting ducks. They feed under the surface of the water, but do not dive..... mostly backside out of water. Therefore, they are found in the shallows. The craft would therefore be designed for shallow water, and have a shallow draught, minimal displacement. Why test this in 8 ft of water when the boat was typically used in 8 inch of water?.. To show the thing is afloat, all you need is one waterproof camera.... From all video showm I can verify that the type of craft used was PBK type Canoe build as described before, that fully loaded, two adults and camping gear for a weeks trecking, would float in 1ft of water quite well. I know this because at one point we were going over shallows and the paddles fouled on the shallows, and we measured the depth. Again, if they wanted to supersize this using something larger and heavier than a punt gun they would need to use a different boat design. A Canoe has a very narrow hull, and with a heavy top weight would be unstable - note that the punt gun's in all the images I've seen are mounted along the axis and as low down as possible. This is because if the weight of the gun was anywhere but on the centre line the boat would roll over. Yes, boats - even a canoe - can handle a fair amount of weight. But such weight is mounted as low down as possible to aid in stability and humans can shift their own weight to compensate for poor loading to some extent. This would not be practical in this case because they might well feel that having someone in the boat is too dangerous - especially if they have to make their own gun. They could, probably, manage to mount a lager gun safely but it would be a hell of a lot of tedious work that would drastically increase the set up times and hence the time needed for filming - which costs them money and risks them going over schedule. This is ignoring that the recoil for a larger gun is almost certainly going to rip the hull apart. A canoe or punt would be a good choice for testing the original myth and for dealing with small arms, certainly they could test shotguns, rifles and probably even their .50 cal in a canoe. But in order to give them the flexibility to even consider anything larger they would need to find a much stronger and wider hull. 'Punt Gun' comes from the type of boat they were originally mounted on - A Punt Boat This design is very similar to modern airboats, but airboats can often be found with metal (rather than wooden) hulls and are slightly wider, both of which would make them ideal for testing with larger guns. (They might even be able to make such a hull, as it is almost identical to their ice boat.) The wider hull makes it more stable, the additional space in the hull allows them to add weight to counteract that of the gun (putting a ton of weight in the bow is going to sink the boat unless there is enough weight at the stern to counter this). They would also find it easier to reinforce the hull, or if needed repair it should it get damaged. Punts, and hunting with punt guns, was not restricted to ducks or very shallow water. They were used to hunt waterfowl of all types* and are more than capable of travelling on rivers - indeed probably had to in order to get to the hunting grounds. So the depth of water under the keep is going to have varied. In this case having a depth of some four feet, or at least working on that assumption, allows them to consider using deeper drafted boats for larger guns. While a flat bottomed, shallow drafted airboat/punt boat might be ideal, it might also be something that they can't get their hands on since this type of boat doesn't seem to be common on the West coast. Time and money might require that they consider other boat designs. Four feet seems like a practical depth. Shallow enough for them to get straight into the water while deep enough to eliminate any risk of the boat touching the bottom. (*Of course when firing a gigantic shotgun into a flock of birds you're not really going to be accurate enough to hit only one type of bird. This in fact is one of the reasons hunting with punt guns is banned in many areas.) As to waterproofing the trench. It may be that they could dig the trench right on the shoreline as an extension of the lake, in which case (given that the trench would only be used for a day or two) waterproofing would not be needed. However this would depend on the nature of shoreline, as it would require a fairly flat and open area where the trench could be build. I *think* that the lake they use has such an area, but I can't be sure of that any more than I can be sure that they would be allowed to fire live shot over the lake.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 15, 2013 13:34:00 GMT
I have aid it before, and I will say it again. they have already borrowed an airboat once, from an owner who let them make non-permanent alterations.
as for shot, they could not use lead, but steel or bismuth shot should be allowable, and I know it is available as small as T.
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Oct 15, 2013 17:29:21 GMT
Here is an interesting site about punt gun hunting.It answers many questions about punt guns, some of which have been asked in this thread. One example of a question asked here and answered in the link, What is the effective range of a punt gun? Answer: 60 yards or less and shots over 70 yards should not be taken at all.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 15, 2013 18:32:09 GMT
Here is an interesting site about punt gun hunting.It answers many questions about punt guns, some of which have been asked in this thread. One example of a question asked here and answered in the link, What is the effective range of a punt gun? Answer: 60 yards or less and shots over 70 yards should not be taken at all. so the effective range is essentially the same as with a shoulder fired shotgun, though less than "goose" guns - as they are made for long range shooting. we have some duck hunters here who essentially use punts for duck blinds, but use shoulder fired shotguns.
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Oct 15, 2013 19:52:41 GMT
Here is an interesting site about punt gun hunting.It answers many questions about punt guns, some of which have been asked in this thread. One example of a question asked here and answered in the link, What is the effective range of a punt gun? Answer: 60 yards or less and shots over 70 yards should not be taken at all. so the effective range is essentially the same as with a shoulder fired shotgun, though less than "goose" guns - as they are made for long range shooting. we have some duck hunters here who essentially use punts for duck blinds, but use shoulder fired shotguns. Yep, pretty much the same thing. They are after all firing shot the same size as shotgun shot. (BB) Sure they fire a lot bigger powder load, but they need the extra powder to push the huge shot load. So it works about even between punt guns and shoulder fired shotguns.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 15, 2013 20:33:45 GMT
so the effective range is essentially the same as with a shoulder fired shotgun, though less than "goose" guns - as they are made for long range shooting. we have some duck hunters here who essentially use punts for duck blinds, but use shoulder fired shotguns. Yep, pretty much the same thing. They are after all firing shot the same size as shotgun shot. (BB) Sure they fire a lot bigger powder load, but they need the extra powder to push the huge shot load. So it works about even between punt guns and shoulder fired shotguns. and you are firing a gun that is designed to have a significant degree of scatter inherent in the ballistic pattern. at 10 yards, my goose gun has a pattern about a foot across. that means at 50 yards, the pattern is 5 feet across. imagine trying to shoot a rifle that was accurate to within 5 feet at 50 yards. (or reverse the figure, and guesstimate it has about 10% coverage at 10 yards - therefore about 2% coverage at 50 yards.)
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 16, 2013 9:33:00 GMT
I suggest they would be better off using a flat bottom weight spreading hull for a heavier gun... Just a suggestion, but yes, they may need a larger boat. Not All... The one I had had a 32inch width. They came in up to 36 inch for a double if I remember correct... much wider than plastic or fibreglass versions. Yes you have to paddle it differently, but by 'eck it wasnt half stable, I could stand up in it no problem and balance quite well. Oh and yes, my paddles were slightly longer than standard.... but again, being over 6ft, you need a longer paddle to make use of that extra reach... Where is the problem?... I think a spectacular ending where bits of the thing fly across the scenery would be a rather good ending?.... quote]indeed probably had to in order to get to the hunting grounds. So the depth of water under the keep is going to have varied. In this case having a depth of some four feet, or at least working on that assumption,[/quote] Not even our Canal boats had that much draft?.... even fully loaded?.... a four foot depth on a boat in the UK would actually hinder it from many rivers or canals, and many other waterways. A Multi-Use craft of that type would be designed to have a draft of Inches to be used in as many places as possible.... By the way, the Punt... Poled punt.... Real extremists, including me, didnt use the pole, we used a long single bladed paddle... that way, the paddle can be turned and used as a tiller to steer the damn thing whilst its moving. Poles have a limited depth as well, having a punt out in deep water tends to upset people who think you are out of control?... Lead is now frowned upon as it poisons wildlife if the eat it, or anything it has touched. Thats about what I expected to be honest, they were never a long distance thing. Again, it has to be mentioned the craft were light, as they had to be human powered, as engines would alert the prey... getting 60 yds away maximum from a flock is no mean feat..... On the craft I suspect may have been slightly adapted as a Punt for the punt gun video I have shown, I have this... PBK 20 Kayak Canvas - touring double 15 DATA LENGTH . 15' BEAM 32" COCKPIT LENGTH 7' DRAFT 6" CAPACITY 600 LBS So Six inch draft.... I suspect 8 inch fully loaded, 600lbs carrying capacity un-modified... As they were mostly self-builds, adding a bit extra length and some better support in the cockpit, 600lbs would be easy to "Go larger" on?... Site for reference www.brunel.ac.uk/~acsrrrm/kayak/pbk/pkb.htmlAs you can see, its VERY similar.... Oh, and for reference, I have clocked up thousands of miles in in of those. Ok, maybe one or two thousand... but definitely more than one. Mine , named Six knots, fell apart from over-use, two re-skins and re-builds and over 10 years of wear. Six knots?.. about the cruising speed you could maintain with two human power doing a weeks worth of paddling...
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 16, 2013 13:59:57 GMT
A six pound cannon weighs something in the region of 650-700 lbs, that is without a gun carriage.
Except that any really big gun they use will not be owned by them, and the owners of the gun are going to be unimpressed at their pride and joy being blasted by debris and dropped into water.
Which is why I said they should consider looking at either buying or making a airboat hull for testing. However this may not be practical, in which case they may have to use whatever type of hull they can buy locally for cheap.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 16, 2013 14:17:57 GMT
A six pound cannon weighs something in the region of 650-700 lbs, that is without a gun carriage. Except that any really big gun they use will not be owned by them, and the owners of the gun are going to be unimpressed at their pride and joy being blasted by debris and dropped into water. Which is why I said they should consider looking at either buying or making a airboat hull for testing. However this may not be practical, in which case they may have to use whatever type of hull they can buy locally for cheap. which is why I have said, twice before, that someone has already loaned them an airboat before (for the blow your own sail episode)
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 16, 2013 15:09:07 GMT
True, but in that case there was no risk of the boat being damaged.
|
|