IS THE VENTED MUZZLE A SUCCESS? (Shield's magazine, Nov 1905)

[ohland]

This has been tried a number of times, Winchester tried it in the 1920s (IIRC) on a match rifle....

Shield's magazine, Vol 1, No. 8, Nov 1905 - page 412

https://books.google.com/books?id=C8QRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA412&dq=rifle+bullet+mould&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBDgoahUKEwiwyKX4w9nGAhURo4gKHT-jBKs#v=onepage&q=rifle%20bullet%20mould&f=true

IS THE VENTED MUZZLE A SUCCESS?

I am a reader of SHIELDS' MAGAZINE and interested in all its discussions. For many years I have been trying to get a rifle that I could depend on to put all its bullets on top of one another at 50 yards ; and many a rifle have I condemned because it would not do this. At last I got a 20 power telescope attached to my rifle, built a solid rest, put a roof over it to shade the gun, and went at the business in earnest. I confined my experimenting to the modern breech loader with fixed ammunition, for I consider muzzle loaders out of date except for target shooting.

I have spent much time and money on rifles, moulds, and different brands of smokeless powder. I finally obtained a bullet that fitted the bore gas-tight, and then my rifle began to shoot straighter than anything I had heretofore found. The reason so many condemn smokeless powder is because they try it in a rifle with a bullet that worked well with black powder, but as there is no upsettage with smokeless powder, if the bullet chances to be a loose fit, of course it gas-cuts and goes wild.

Black powder explodes with a bang, hits the bullet a hard rap, starts it instantly, and, if it is a slack fit, upsets it to fit the bore and makes it gas-tight. Smokeless powder burns slowly, starts the ball more gradually and therefore does not upset it, but increases the pressure in the barrel as its speed of burning increases and consequently keeps chasing the bullet up and pushing it faster and faster until it is out of the barrel. If your bullet fits the bore gas-tight and everything else is equal, you can get the same or better accuracy with more penetration and less recoil when using smokeless powder of a good brand. Be sure to use the quantity stated by the manufacturer or you may get hurt.

I finally settled on DuPont No. 2 for a low pressure powder, with a hand-made lead and tin bullet. I have a .303 Savage rifle and use about 16 grains of powder and a 132-grain bullet. It is a splendid load up to about 200 yards and will penetrate seven inches of dry chestnut at 30 feet from muzzle, with the bullet sized to .311. I have shot this load over 100 times without wiping, and it still shot as accurately as at the start. One passage of a woolen patch on the end of a field wiper made the barrel bright and clean.

For the full or service charge use the 196 grain metal patched bullets and a good brand of 30 calibre, high-pressure powder. When I had done all I could think of I could depend on groups of 10 shots at a time at 50 yards, of about 1 1/2 to 2 inches on light favorable days with no sun, but on bright, sunny days I usually got two-inch and up to 3-inch groups. 1 could not find that any one else was doing any better without a machine rest, when they used fixed ammunition as I did; but I still thought I should do better.

For some time I had noticed the advertisement' of Kent's vented muzzle. After reading his circulars I wrote him that I be lieved his scheme was good if used on the thick barrel of a target rifle where there was room to make big vent holes, but in a small barrel like mine I did not think he could get vent holes large enough to do much good; but that if he had confidence enough in his scheme to do the job and let me test it before paying, I would send him my rifle. He replied that he had vented the small muzzle of a Mauser rifle with gratifying results, and if I would send him my barrel he would do the job and trust to my honor, after trying the rifle, as to whether I should pay him or not. I sent the rifle, got it back in due time and tested it at once, although it was not a favorable day.

The sun was hot and shone on the target, and there was a light wind. I used exactly the same load as before and tested it at the same range, with the same sights and all. The first group measured one inch; the next group was 1 3-16 inches; the next one was 13-16 inch. Here were 3 consecutive groups of 10 shots each that averaged considerably less than half the size I had been getting on the same kind of a day before the rifle was vented, so I gladly and at once sent Kent his money, and I would not take 3 times what it cost me and be compelled to do without it Just think of the difference ; first pop out of the box I got 3 straight groups of one inch, 1 3-16 inches, and 13-16 inch; the average of which is nearly 75 per cent, better than the best formerly secured.

I will not go into details as to why the venting makes a rifle shoot better, but I know from experience that it does ; and it seems to be one of those cases where theory and practice work harmoniously together, though it might not be that every rifle would show as much percentage of improve ment as mine does. Mr. Kent will send printed matter on application, that will explain why it does.

• If you want to make your rifle shoot better, send the barrel with $3.50 to P. E. Kent, Utica, N. Y. I never met Mr. Kent and am in no way interested in his scheme other than to give him credit for figuring out this trick on a rifle.

E. P. Armstrong, Portland, Ore.

[ohland]

https://books.google.com/books?id=EZMwAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA8&dq=vented+muzzle&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAWoVChMIl6uOv9TaxgIVBDaICh13nwmS#v=on epage&q=vented%20muzzle&f=false

No. 2, October 20th, pg 28-29

TROUBLE WITH THE SMALL BORES.
Many times in my “practice" I have been called upon to relieve difficulties in the .22 caliber rifle.

A bullet has lodged in the bore: In my diagnosis I have invariably found this bullet imbedded in a substance resembling mud, hard as a stone, and extremely difficult to remove. The bore is packed in front of the bullet, often for several inches. It is not difficult to find and trace the cause; gross negligence has allowed the bore to become foul. The little bullet, no longer able to force itself through, shoves this foreign matter ahead of it until its force is exhausted. A blow from a heavy hammer could not pack this substance more effec tually. To remove, I use a steel rod, close fitting the bore, having its cutting edge at right angles with the bore, much as a spade is used digging clay, stirring up the mud, for mud it becomes, water being the best dissolvent. W'ith some skill and much patience, relief comes. with no danger of a relapse unless the same neglect follows.

Such attacks can only be prevented in one way. The youth should be taught the first principles of gunnery. Take good care of your gun, thoroughly clean and oil the bore immediately after using, no matter if but one shot; if neglected, disaster will surely follow. No boy should be allowed a Fifle unless he manifests a disposition to care for it. The best treatment, after thoroughly cleaning. is to place it in a dry, warm room. I have placed my gun, leaning against the kitchen chimney, in the chamber over it, for a year at a time, and found it perfectly bright, no rust whatever.

In connection and included with the ailments of the small bores, is another singular, and so far as I know, an unaccountable trouble. In each and all the many cases which I have treated, I find rings in the bore near the muzzle, close together, regular, and as though systematically made. They are often quite deep, and to remove, require the bore to be enlarged to .25 caliber; Of course, these rings are detrimental to accuracy. As I said before, I am at a loss for a reasonable cause The vented muzzle might remove the cause.

I am often asked for an opinion concerning the vented muzzle invention. With this I am constrained to sav that many peculiar, we might say phenomenal, features develop in the science of gunnery. .At one time I conceived the idea of relieving the recoil. My device consisted of several disks arranged before the muzzle, about half an inch apart. with the first one-half inch there from. A hole a little larger than the bore made a passage way for the bullet. These rings were designed to interfere with the escaping gas, and thus produce a forward motion. So far as lessening recoil, the experiment was a success, but with the powder used, the fouling around the muzzle was such as to cause an abandonment of the invention.

Many years ago, a local gunsmitli created a sensation by declaring that he had discovered the secret to the greatest accuracv in the rifle. This wonderful invention consisted of a vent in the breech of the old muzzleloader. A small hole was drilled into the powder chamber under the tube or into the end of the cylinder. Like the vented muzzle, it was not clear just how benefits would result. In the case mentioned the objections very much exceeded benefits. A small stream of fire greeted the unwary; besides, the escaping gas very soon cut for itself a larger venting place. Yet there may be something in it.

GUMPTION.

[ohland]

Venting The Sporting Rifle

https://books.google.com/books?id=wBkLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA497&dq=vented+muzzle&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAmoVChMItfWc6eTaxgIVECyICh08Mw52#v=on epage&q=vented%20muzzle&f=false

Western Field, Vol 5, No 9, Jan 1905, pages 495-497

Venting the Sporting Rifle.

Editor Western Field: Under above caption in your October issue, Mr. E. A. Leopold, of Norristown, Pa., contributes a very interesting article to your columns which was enjoyed and greatly appreciated by me, and undoubtedly by your other readers. There are, however, some statements contained therein that seem to be at a variance with some of the testimonies of the users of the "vented muzzle" he mentions, and especially that portion wherein he says: " These experiments resulted, so far as I have been able to learn, in no increased accuracy, nor was there any other benefits derived." I will only coincide with this in that the experiments he refers to as conducted by others. if made along the same lines that those were which he enumerates therein, seems to me could do nothing less; but. from nearly all of the rifles that I have " doctored " satisfactory results as to improvement in accuracy, lessening of recoil, flatter trajectory, and more penetration have been reported—and in some cases exceptionally gratifying results have been obtained. Notwithstanding this, I have had one or two cases where no very perceptible improvements were reported, and in one case I actually sent my check to pay for re-rifling a barrel as I could do nothing with it. Under the same condition now, I feel that I could better matters very much indeed, as improved tools and appliances and special scientific instruments enable me to get at the bottom of things in a much more gratifying and thorough manner.

The barrel referred to, a special .22, plainly indicated a " choked " breech about an inch in front of the shell, and was so badly contracted as to preclude anyone but a practical rifle-maker from attempting to remove it. while the muzzle diameter was correct; evidently a bullet shot through this " freak " tube and compelled to be squeezed through this small aperture, went " bobbing " and skipping through the remaining portion of the barrel, and it was no wonder it did not shoot the best before it was sent to me, or that I could not improve it. Had I discovered this abortion in rifling before treating the barrel, it would have been returned immediately, and as a result I usually look them over In some way now so as to not get " taken in " again.

In Mr. Leopold's article he stated that the rifle that he tried his experiments with was " always a fair shooter." and in this matter he differed materially from the experiments I conducted in arriving at my conclusions, which resulted in the invention of the vented muzzle, as the rifle I used was a notoriously inaccurate one (or got so after about six months' use), and could not be counted upon to hit a 12-inch circle regularly or with any degree of certainty at 200 yards.

144523


This led to thoughtful, unceasing investigation with powder of all kinds and quantities, bullets of all weights and different degrees of hardness; primers, shells, dirty shooting, wiping after each shot, dry barrels, oiled barrels, wads—with and without, crimps and no crimps, or the bullets seated ahead of shell in barrel, but all without material gain. Then we tried shorter distances and the bullets would fly wild, tip, " keyhole," etc., and occasionally fly exactly where held. At last we got up to about four inches from the muzzle, and found that we could discern a slight " tipping " even there, though the bullets fitted the bore so tight as to almost have to be pounded through the barrel, and one a trifle smaller did not seem to work as well at 200 yards. The muzzle was examined for bruises, dents, etc., sent to the factory twice and returned as O. K. —and still would not shoot.

I was in despair, and wasted nights and Sundays in ruminating over it and endeavoring to effect a cure. I had often noticed the usual deposit, at the muzzle of a rifle, of the powder residue in the shape of a " star," but never thought it had any material connection with a possible " flipping " of the bullet until we discovered that one would occasionally show signs of tipping at four inches from the muzzle; it however, began to dawn upon me that no matter how fast the bullet was traveling through the barrel, that the gas was evidently capable of traveling faster, if opportunity offered, and just as the base of the bullet was leaving the extreme edge of the bore was the time when it got in its detrimental " cussedness."

144524


'Twas then I remembered that smaller powder charges had given the best ( ?) results, but also decreased velocity. Increased elevation, and was more easily affected by the wind—therefore not desirable.

The next question was to remedy existing conditions, if possible, and not decrease the propelling force. A relief of the excessive muzzle pressure ought to do it; but how was it to be "made practicable? I had my theory, but dare not run the risk of spoiling a barrel—still It was no use as It was so I took a drill and prepared to " buck the tiger."

Common sense told me that I would lose velocity—but if I hit the mark more regularly I didn't so much care about that. Sentimentally, I might better hit, if I did not succeed in hurting, than to not be able to hit at all. I knew about what the rifle would do at all ranges, therefore did not waste any preliminary shots. I always considered myself a pretty fair mechanic, and have had a " kit " of tools for years that was the envy of my fellow - workmen. After perforating the barrel to my satisfaction, and removing the " burrs," I tried it at our 50-yard range, and great was my gratification to see some improvement in accuracy. I tried some more perforations (all were very small) and got still better results.

This led to tests for penetration to see how much velocity was lost, and in comparison with other rifles using the same cartridge I found an actual gain, or more penetration; this puzzled me some, especially as it seemed to be more apparent as the distance increased, and led to the firm conviction that while less muzzle velocity might be expected (if any) as the bullet issued therefrom, that, on account of a decreased atmospheric resistance during the flight of a bullet that was flying true—compared to a "tipping" or "wabbling" one—that the initial velocity was longer maintained and gave, therefore, increased penetration.

144525


These results caused me much gratification, but many rifle men expressed an opinion that not only were the lateral vent-holes unattractive and unsightly, but also objectionable and dangerous In that anyone standing nearby would be liable to receive sudden and disagreeable if not injurious, notification that they were too close to the " line of fire," and were of the opinion that the rifle was already loaded down with traditional horrors that resembled the old lady's admonition that " it was dangerous without lock, stock, or barrel." This led to the turning of the blast toward the direction of the target, arid again I was pleased to note added benefits in the shape of increased penetration, as well as eliminating the before-mentioned objections.

This additional benefit was attributed to the effect of the surrounding current of gas preceding the bullet, and while it minimized the vicious effect of the blast at the muzzle in delivery. It also formed a live, rushing stream into which the projectile was launched that acted on the progress of the bullet as a similar current would, in accelerating the speed of a swimmer—at least until wholly out of the reach" of its influence. After getting once correctly started, it is manifest that it would continue a more accurate course than if an error, no matter how small, were Imparted to it at the beginning.

It occurs to me that from the very beginning the relief or exhaust obtained by Mr. Leopold's account was excessive or greatly be yond what is necessary to overcome the deleterious effects of the well-known muzzle blast, which does not necessitate complete extinction —only relieving, as the amount that can be forced through a very small opening under the terrible pressure generated is simply incredible.

I once saw a 32-40 rifle barrel burst about six Inches from the breech; the silt through which all this pent-up energy escaped was a small one about l-32d of an Inch wide, at the widest, by not over two inches long. The bullet was stuck about two inches from the muzzle, and the shell was almost " frozen " into the chamber. The report was peculiar, but the jar was reported to be something great. It goes to show, however, how rapidly and through how small an orifice the energies within the bore can exhaust themselves.

Allow me to say, however, that this slotting of the barrel, as described by Mr. Leopold, was not new by any means, as a patent for essentially the same thing was granted to one J. A. DeBrame, of New York, on July 2. 1861, and went so far as to cover the " slotting " of the entire barrel, if necessary', etc., and he applied it to rifles as well as revolvers. DeBrame, however, was afflicted with the " air pressure In front of the bullet " theory as well, so he proposed to get rid of the resistance in front as well as the effect at the muzzle. It did not work or we would have heard more about it; neither did Mr. Leopold's. Mine does; or else there are a good many people (and the number Is Increasing) who are greatly mistaken In what their rifles would do before being "vented " or else do not know what they are talking about. And many of these same men are sending me the second rifle for treatment, and several have sent the third. This speaks for itself, and the words of gratitude and good cheer come from the Atlantic and the Pacific, and from Maine nearly to the Gulf.

I am sorry I could not produce some original and unique illustrations, like the " whizzer," to make this article more Interesting, and if I had the remotest idea that some of the boards and chunks of wood showing difference in penetration would have ever proved interesting, I would have preserved them! as for comparative targets, I will leave those who use the vented muzzle to do that, and they will speak more effectively than anything I can say.

I will content myself with Just one " group " which has been printed In Shooting and Fishing of New York, illustrated in a communication to that Journal by Dr. Bierdemann. How many of your readers own (or know of anyone else who does) a breech -loading, high-power, repeating rifle that will make anywhere near as good a " group " at 250 yards (10 shots in 2 5/8-inch) as did this rifle of Dr. Bierdemann's, and he says that the venting process Improved his rifle fully 60%; and If you write him privately he will probably admit that 60% would not be placing It too high. Pick out the best magazine, repeating, high-power rifle you know of and shoot It against this score at 250 yards and see about how much margin there will be between the scores, in comparison. Mr. Albee, of Little Rock. Wash., says that the factory test of his rifle was a 2 1/2-lnch circle; a target of his own shooting at same distance (seventy yards) took 5/8 of an inch to contain all of his shots; how much over 100% improvement is this? Mr. Fred Pearson, of Bar Harbor, Me., says that with his Marlin at twenty yards he could not make better than a 2 1/2 -inch group; after " venting," he could put them all into a 1-inch circle, and he sends along another rifle for treatment.

144526


Ask the editor of "Western Field'' what his experience is; he will tell you cheerfully. If Mr. Leopold will carefully test a rifle belonging to someone else (an indifferent shooter preferred) and send it to me for treatment, then Just as carefully test it again after ward. I think I can settle this matter to his entire satisfaction as far as improvement is concerned. I am speaking, however, more particularly of the strictly sporting rifle (the breech-loading, repeating rifle used in hunting of the high-power class), and not the target style using the old black powder, and lead bullets. I will be glad to furnish any of your readers who may apply with a pamphlet and further information regarding this device that they may Judge more fully for themselves.

Utica. N. Y. PERRY E. KENT.