a long gun

[George]

I suspect that in the case of your gun its worn from thousands of rammings and cleaning with a wooden ramrod/cleaning rod.

I considered that possibility, but I think there is little chance that's the case, for two reasons. First, the "coning" is perfectly symmetrical, perfectly circular at the muzzle, and the thickness of the metal is the same all around. I believe a worn muzzle would show the wear more in one area and make a lopsided circle. The bore measures exactly .610 inch in all directions. Second, the angle of the coning is too steep for it to have been caused by wear. Change from .550" to .610" in only 1.5" makes a fair angle, and the ramrod would not have been able to slide in and out at that angle.

I'm not sure what the original owner or maker would have seen as an advantage in having a "coned" muzzle. This is a feature that is associated loading patched bullets in rifles - which I doubt your gun ever was.

I've often wonder that, too. Speed of loading, maybe? Even using bare balls it would be easier and quicker to drop them into a widemouth cone before ramming. I've shot both round ball and shot in the gun, using modern style patching and wadding, and the cone is a lot more useful for a shot load than a patched ball. You can just throw wads and shot in, but a patched ball is very difficult to keep centered on the patch in that large muzzle.

Spence

 

[Capt. Jas.]

In the eighteenth century, many fowling guns proper had the muzzle relieved or coned down about to 1.5 inches. An example would be a 12 bore would cone out to about 10 bore. This was thought to give the best shot patterns. It was many times used with a breech relieved in like manner or "roughened".

 

[Extranero]

In the eighteenth century, many fowling guns proper had the muzzle relieved or coned down about to 1.5 inches. An example would be a 12 bore would cone out to about 10 bore. This was thought to give the best shot patterns. It was many times used with a breech relieved in like manner or "roughened".

I've seen the same thing on 19th century fowlers. Often these guns had barrels that were oct/round or round and were quite thin at the muzzle. In this case, the entire muzzle might be slightly belled out as if swaged. On one 1812 marked Tryon fowler I've seen, the bore size at the muzzle was nearly the size of the OD of the barrel at the waist. The gun was about .72" at the muzzle but was actually a 16 bore 1.5" or so behind the muzzle. The barrel was so thin at the muzzle that you could almost cut patches with it.

The bushed touch hole on that one is pretty neat. I've seen these before. They touch hole was usually just cleaned up and threaded. An iron screw was added and the touch hole was redrilled. Documentation from the Hawken/Lakenan shop in 1822 mentions "bushing touch holes with iron". The practice was fairly common.

On the lock, my gut feeling says that at least the **** is a replacement. The other stuff looks suspiciously like L&R parts on an original plate. But that does not substantially devalue it.

The rest looks 19th century to me, even the barrel. Like Joe, I'm wondering if its not a New England smooth rifle.

Sean

 

[JV Puleo]

An interesting and worthwhile observation... I had not thought of that. The only smoothbores I've shot were muskets or later percussion doubles so I appreciate your view on the value of having the muzzle opened up a bit.

 

[George]

A very pleasant and educational conversation. Thanks to all who contributed, you have been most helpful. It's good to have a place to discuss such things with a view to learning something.

Spence