Fantasy Flintlock Rifle Build

So, I have this thread on my queen in pistol going here in black powder forum and this firearm got me to thinking. There is a kit made in England to make one.

https://www.blackleyandson.com/acatalog/QUEEN-ANNE-BASIC-PISTOL-KIT-WITH-SILVER-KIT003.html

It is pricey but sounds like a lot of fun to do. Real pricey because if I do it I would want to make a matched pair . At $500 a piece just for the kit that is a lot of money to me. It is a side lock unlike mine, which is a box lock. I think I have the terminology correct but I could be wrong. Mine has the hammer in the middle and the side lock has the hammer on the outside on the side of course.

The fantasy part of this comes from my desire to build a double rifle with turn off barrels. How cool would that be? I'm not sure it's possible. So far all I have found are right hand locks with the thread for the barrel in the pistol size. I'm not sure one is made for rifle size. And, one would have to be a left-hand lock. Possible? I don't know. I'd like to hear your ideas and what the challenges would be.

Challenges that I see are:
- regulating barrels that have to turn off
- how would I attach a forearm? It could be as simple as a splinter type you see on a side by side shotgun. But how to attach it.
- finding a lock big enough to accept a rifle charge. Somewhere around 60 to 90 grains.
- finding a suitable left hand lock. Come to think of it, even finding a right hand lock that had a turn off thread.

I have started a conversation with the people over at Blakely and Sons. We will see where that leads us. I suspect a dead end, but you never know.

Sights and regulation may not be as problematic as it might seem. If each barrel has both front and rear sight mounted on the barrel they 'should' shoot to point of aim after removal/installation. The problem being to have enough room between the barrels to rotate the barrels off. Initial thought it to use interrupted thread like a take down shotgun. Not sure one could successfully use interrupted threads on a rifle though. Still just brainstorming.

Yes, it would be 'weird' to have two sets of sights, one on each barrel, and it wouldn't lend itself to a repeatable 'cheek weld'. But it could work. All still fantasy at this point. But fun fantasy.

Loyalist Dave said:

Agreed, the distance between the barrels to allow you to get the loading wrench in to undo the barrels is the bigger problem.

Click to expand...

That's why I'm thinking about disrupted threads. One barrel turning clockwise and the other turning counter clockwise.

Loyalist Dave said:

So have you thought of merely getting a longer barrel made and adapting the back of the pistol so it has a rifle stock, and thus having a Queen Anne Rifle ? It would perform rather well I should think as the ball is obturated onto the rifling rather than using a patched ball.

Click to expand...

I have considered that but the pistol sized locks have a limited powder capacity. The Queen Anne pistol i have holds approximately 15-20 grains. I could make a 31 caliber squirrel rifle but was hoping for something a little bigger maybe 45 or 50 caliber with a powder capacity of 60-90 grains.

Im not sure how bad of an idea this is but a Queen Anne pistol lock could be modified to add a screw on powder chamber between the barrel and lock. That would introduce two screwed joints Though that joint could be made permanent. Not sure how good of an idea that is. How much powder/pressure can a pistol lock withstand. For that matter how much pressure can a screwed on joint withstand?

Jackrabbit1957 said:

The lock ain't what's holding pressure, it's the breech ya gotta worry about.

Click to expand...

Maybe my terminology is incorrect but when the breech is a part of the lock the definition of the terms aren't as clear. Today it might be more accurate to call it a receiver but I doubt it was called a receiver when it was manufactured.

The intrigue of this fantasy rifle is both the turn off barrels and it being a double rifle. It is not important that the rifle be any quicker to reload. So barrel bands with spacers to help secure the fore end would work for me. A coworker suggested that each barrel have a hinged stud that would be used to turn off the barrels instead of a barrel wrentch. Remember the barrel threads would be interrupted so the barrels would only need to turn 90 degrees.

Loyalist Dave said:

So regardless, if making more than a small game rifle, you're going to need to come up with a larger chamber.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'll need a larger chamber. I haven't settled on what to use, either two pistol locks or two rifle locks. The Queen Anne pistol locks (receivers?) are quite small and would lend themselves to a side by side installation compared to two rifle locks placed side by side. Rifle locks would need to be modified to have the integral breech while the pistol locks wouldn't. If I use the pistol locks the chamber could be extended by screwing on an extended chamber where the barrel screws on now. That 'Chamber Extension' could be machined to have the same threads to allow the barrel to be threaded on to the chamber extension. In that case we would still use the original chamber of the pistol lock plus the added chamber length. The real question is if the original chamber/lock/receiver (whatever we decide to call it) could withstand the added pressure from a 60-90 grain powder load. The original chamber holds approximately 20 grains of powder now.

Jackrabbit1957 said:

Who says you need the lock inline with the barrels? Why not use traditional locks with the screw barrel setup? Might make things a little easier as far as finding pieces and parts to build it. Just spit balling here.

Click to expand...

Spitballing is what this thread is all about. I need to be more clear in the future. Words without pictures, and sometimes with pictures, are difficult to convey what is in my brain. I would be constructing this using side locks. It is the only way I can see to mount sights on the barrel to relieve the requirement to regulate the barrels to the same point of aim. If I use a lock that are in line with the barrel I will need a rib in between the barrels to mount sights on. Regulating removable barrels without something to stabilize the two together seems an impossible task to me. So I would be using side locks with the Queen Anne thread on Barrel attachment. The problem there is, the only ones I can see our pistol sized and our only right-handed. I have been unable to find sidelocks with a screw Barrel attachment that are rifle sized. That doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I haven't found one yet.

Jackrabbit1957 said:

Have you looked at RE Davis or L&R locks yet?, both offer right and left hand locks.

Click to expand...

I have not exhausted my search for an appropriate lock yet. Work keeps getting in the way of what I really want to do.

4v50 Gary said:

90 degree twist off - Milling machine needed for that. Rotary head to mill of the barrel threads. Breech can be mounted in mill for same pupose.

Click to expand...

I'm sure a good machinist can do what I am dreaming of. I have no machine experience. So any thing that required precision would be farmed out. Once I have an idea of what I want to do I'll add up the extimated costs and figure out why someone else hasn't done this before me. Think $$$$$ !

I'm bringing this one back to the forefront to continue gathering information. I have a lot of irons in the fire for actual work, but if I don't finish the research this project won't ever happen. I'm not getting any younger you know.

Johnm1 said:

The real question is if the original chamber/lock/receiver (whatever we decide to call it) could withstand the added pressure from a 60-90 grain powder load. The original chamber holds approximately 20 grains of powder now.

Click to expand...

My observation is if we add more powder we get a bigger bang. And I assume that means that we produce higher pressure. So it seems to me that a lock (I really don't know what to call it, receiver maybe, but the part that holds the charge, ball and barrel in this case) designed to hold 20 grains is unlikely to be able to withstand a 60 or 80 grain charge with the same size/weight ball. That just seems logical to me. But the powder chamber in my pistol is approximately 1/4" in diameter and approximately 1.1" long. To get to 60 grains I would have to extend the powder chamber another 2.2" at 1/4" diameter. Does the shape of the powder column have anything to do with how much pressure is developed?

I have reopened communications with Blackley and Son in England and have asked the same question about the Queen Anne lock they sell along with a bunch of other questions. But I'd like to hear what the brain trust here thinks about the larger powder charge and its shape in the powder chamber.

hawg said:

They did make a single barrel turnoff. It had no forearm. The receiver would be the hardest part to fabricate.

View attachment 1055327

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call them common but several can be found in a search. These are 66 and 67 calibers. The one you pictured has a pretty large receiver and double triggers. The trick is to make one that is as elegant as the originals. My concern is if I use modified rifle locks it will look like a behemoth.