When did small caliber rifles become a thing and why?

smoothshooter said:

I would not call it “mythology”.

Click to expand...

I agree, but there are some misunderstandings about the time period.

First it's NOT that the cost of lead and powder in Europe was much less than in America. It was true, however, that the availability and cost of lead and powder in Frontier areas, where the big game hunters were being supplied, was higher there than in a colonial trading hub like Boston, New York City, Charleston SC. The more shots one could get from a pound of lead and pound of powder = more efficient use of funds, for the Long Hunters who were hide hunters, as well as for the market hunters, the subsistence hunters, etc.

The caliber of the rifles shrank over time in the East, as the length of the barrels increased. This seems to correlate with the presence of large, dangerous game, and the lack thereof. Conical bullets such as a Picket, Sugarloaf, and Minnie Balls slowly began to appear as early as the 1830's but seem to have been more for target work, than hunting. The Minnie didn't get popular until the 1850's due to the Crimean War, but was poo poo'd for large, dangerous game by hunters, who preferred the patched round ball (See Forsyth The Sporting Rifle and Its Projectiles)

The Germanic gun makers that immigrated to The Colonies were accustomed to shorter, large caliber, rifled pieces. However, they were quite well acquainted with what we would call a "long rifle", as in Germany these were popular for target shooting. The "jaeger" was better suited for hunting from horseback, in rather thick underbrush, in forests that were not "old growth" because of the millennia old need for charcoal. The Forests of what today is France, Germany, Austria, and Poland were very similar to a lot of forest one finds today in the USA. When the hunters were here in old growth forests with huge trees, and a triple canopy that reduced underbrush, they often dismounted and hunted afoot, and needing rifles very precise in accuracy, caused the lengthening of the barrels, while economics reduced the calibers. One may dispatch a black bear with a single .54 round ball..., and it wasn't until later that "loading for bear" traditionally in the East meant to add powder AND a second patched ball, not a conical, into the smaller caliber rifle of the day.

While it's true many if not all true gunsmiths in the colonies were capable of making a rifle of any caliber, the question was more of were they able to make multiple calibers and twist rates? Knowing how to construct a machine to rifle a barrel by hand was one thing, but having the TIME and RESOURCES to create the machine to be able to rifle a raw barrel to that specific caliber and twist rate is another matter. Some gunsmiths used just one machine for most if not all of their rifling. See the Hawken Brothers of St. Louis MO, originally hailing from Hagerstown, MD.

LD

jd945043 said:

As Americans heading west the found bigger game. But for some reason the Smaller bored guns became a thing. Why?

Click to expand...

Improvements in propellants, speed and accuracy of projectiles, simply overall modernization of ammunition. Lighter, smaller cartridges with improved distance capabilities.

smoothshooter said:

I would not call it “mythology”.

Click to expand...

logical would be a better term.

Big Bear Joe said:

I once read somewhere that the US Government started regulating the caliber of guns that could be traded to the Indians around the time of the great Indian Wars. I don't remember where I read this but did find this quote today in True West Magazine:

Whether flint or caplock, Indian trade guns of this period were usually full-stocked arms of .45 caliber or larger. In 1837, the War Department’s Office of Indian Affairs issued specifications for guns destined for trade with various tribes. Built to the standard of measurement at the time, these contracted guns employed a round lead ball in a caliber that “a pound of lead” would “not make less than forty-five, nor more than one hundred, and must be of a length and weight corresponding properly with the size of the ball.” by Phil Spangenberger | Jan 13, 2015

And then I found this:

There are 156 round balls of 32 caliber, 90 round balls of 36 caliber, 50 round balls of 44 caliber, and 38 round balls of 50 caliber in a single pound of soft lead.- https://blackpowderguide.com/round-balls-per-pound-lead/
So it would seem that the good 'ol US Government mandated the use of smaller caliber rifles for Indian Trage Guns, at least to some degree. Most of the period trade guns I've seen up for sale were around 36 caliber, but it is also written that guns around 45 caliber were the most common. However, the modern Lyman "Trade Rifle" replicas of today are only offered in 50 and 54 caliber.

Off topic but something else I encountered and found to be very interesting is that the Indians preferred flintlocks over percussion caps for reasons not too unlike what is going on today with cap shortages!

"For some time after the appearance of the percussion ignition system in the 1820s, Indians, like many white frontiersmen, clung to the more familiar flintlocks—partially because of the availability of new flints, as compared to the percussion caps in the early years of the caplock system. For example, after receiving a delivery of 550 percussion rifles in a trade, the Choctaw tribe in Fort Smith, Arkansas, exchanged 200 of them for flintlocks. In another instance, a band of Osages refused percussion arms in 1840, not only because of an abundant supply of flint stones, but also because of a gunsmith, made available to them by the U.S. government, who kept their firearms in good working order."

So how much did shooting supplies cost in those days?

From its beginning in 1670, the Hudson's Bay Company traded guns to the Indians on a large scaler. By 1742, beaver pelts were valued at: one pelt for one pound of shot or three flints; four pelts for one pound of power; ten pelts for a pistol; twenty pelts for a trade gun.

The primary sourced of the Indian trade gun was factories in Birmingham and London, England. The gun makers in London charged that Birmingham turned out park-paling muskets for the American trade. The Birmingham manufacturers were often referred to as blood merchants and their factories blood houses by the London group. There are numerous accounts in journals of gun barrels blowing up when these trade guns were fired (Northwest Journal). There is no way to determine how many Indians and trader lost all or parts of their hands from these guns. Still, problems with the Indian trade gun were probably no higher than other Colonial guns of the period.

By the early eighteen hundreds, the trading companies had established rigid requirements for the Northwest guns. The full-stocked, smooth bore trade guns varied little in shape and style, but underwent changes in barrel lengths. By the late 1820's, the 30 inch barrel had become popular. The overall length of a standard Northwest gun with a 30 inch barrel was 45.5 inches. A distinctive feature of these guns was the dragon or serpent shaped side plate. Most Indians would not trade for a gun that did not have the serpent plate. Hansen states that the earliest record of the Hudson's Bay gun with its distinctive dragon ornament is dated 1805.

Click to expand...

So it appears that a trade gun sold for about $150 in 2024 dollars.
About the same as a new single shot shotgun costs in 2024.

I think they are like us today and think hmmm I got a 50, and 54 rifle and a smoothbore fowler, I now need something smaller like a 40. Well now I a 40 I need A 32, then ohh man now I want a 36 and the cyclr continues. New calibers equals new sales. The same is true with all the modern stuff. People seem to want the newest and coolest. Ok I know theres mmore to it but I have a good point too.

I remember this subject coming up once among some historians and older hunters once, and what I was told was that it was much easier and more practical to hunt squirrels, rabbits etc. then deer which in many cases was harder to preserve. It was easier to bag a couple of squirrels and make a stew without worrying about wasting anything where if you shot a deer and you had no refrigeration unless you smoked it you were going to waste a lot of it. A .32, a .36 or even a .40 could take small game without too much effort and can be used on deer up close with the right placed shot.

Daveboone said:

I think in the east, as bigger game and hostiles became scarce and the need for bigger bore lessened, smaller bore became more popular.

Click to expand...

Exactly .....

jd945043 said:

As Americans heading west the found bigger game. But for some reason the Smaller bored guns became a thing. Why?

Click to expand...

Here's my thoughts. Upon landing in the America's there were large game, like elk and bison not far from the east coast. The guns needed for large game had a large bore to deal with said beasties. Once they were gone it was prudent to use a smaller bore, less lead and powder.
David Crockett was well known, and documented, to use a 40 caliber flintlock for hunting "Bar". Conicals were in use by then, and I've often wondered if he double balled or used Conicals when bear hunting. He killed 125 bear with the 40 caliber over a 9 year span.
He was presented a very nice 40 caliber percussion long rifle before leaving for Texas. But left it at home as he thought getting caps in Tejas might be an issue. It's unknown what rifle he carried into Bexar County in 1836, but neither it or he were ever seen again. His new fangled cap rifle is in a private collection in Houston TX by a family member.

David LaPell said:

I remember this subject coming up once among some historians and older hunters once, and what I was told was that it was much easier and more practical to hunt squirrels, rabbits etc. then deer which in many cases was harder to preserve. It was easier to bag a couple of squirrels and make a stew without worrying about wasting anything where if you shot a deer and you had no refrigeration unless you smoked it you were going to waste a lot of it. A .32, a .36 or even a .40 could take small game without too much effort and can be used on deer up close with the right placed shot.

Click to expand...

The native Americans were pretty good at smoking and drying meat, and making pemmican. I can't imagine the new settlers didn't have knowledge in doing the same.

David LaPell said:

I remember this subject coming up once among some historians and older hunters once, and what I was told was that it was much easier and more practical to hunt squirrels, rabbits etc. then deer which in many cases was harder to preserve. It was easier to bag a couple of squirrels and make a stew without worrying about wasting anything where if you shot a deer and you had no refrigeration unless you smoked it you were going to waste a lot of it. A .32, a .36 or even a .40 could take small game without too much effort and can be used on deer up close with the right placed shot.

Click to expand...

Not to mention probably every country boy learning early how to make simple traps/dead falls, etc. Even into the thirties, I was told by my grandma of the big kettle of "everlasting stew" that was fed daily by whatever was scrounged up (rural upstate NY)

Eterry said:

The native Americans were pretty good at smoking and drying meat, and making pemmican. I can't imagine the new settlers didn't have knowledge in doing the same.

Click to expand...

History is replete with descriptions of meat/fish drying on racks.