about barrel configuration

[54ball]

smoothbore addict,

Just where in my post did I say that all barrels 200 years ago were swamped?

There is definitive historical proof that swamped, tapered, and straight barrels were produced in almost all time periods.

Please enlighten us on these original and perfectly straight barreled guns. This would be a good research project.

I don't believe any of the serious historians on this site would catagorically say that no straight barrels were made between 1730 and 1830, or that after 1840 noone made a swamped profiled barrel. So what are we arguing about?

Again, I never said no straight barrels were made. Ive's studied 18th and early 19th century southern rifles almost exclusively for the past few years.
All known examples with hand forged barrels have some degree of swamp. It's not until the first decades of the 19th century ,that you begin to see the factory made straight barrels in large numbers. That's not to say that hand forged straight barrels did not exist but where are they?

What I saw confirmed, to me, what I have long believed. In neither of the museums were any of the rifle barrels swamped. None. Nada, zip. All straight.

Do you know this for sure? Were measurements taken?

Meaning, to me, that the guys who have bought, or had built rifles with straight barrels or smoothies with straight barrels cannot be fairly critized for having non-HC/PC guns. They are perfectly OK historically.

Possibly, but where are the confirmed straight barrel originals?

Teensy-tiny amounts of center dip do not make a swamp, IMHO. They may be encountered only because of an apprentice using the file too much in that area while trying to make a straight barrel. Dunno, just speculatin'.

Isn't that what a swamp is? The apprentice analogy is grasping for straws.

Well, if it looks straight and you can't tell its swamped without measurement, it is straight. There would be no point in hand making a barrel that is so close to straight that you can't tell its swamped without measuring it.

There would be no point in believing a circle was actually square either.

 

[asbrown]

In Peter Alexanders book "The Gunsmith of Grenville County" he pictures and gives measurements for a John Armstrong rifle with a straight 15/16" barrel, and a Simon Lauck rifle with a Straight 15/16" barrel. There are also rifles by Christian Hawken, John Schriver, and Peter Resor, that have straight taper barrels. I'm no historian but aren't these guys fairly well known and respected gunsmiths?
P.S. I didn't intend to suggest you were discounting the existence of any kind of barrel. I was actually responding in the blind to a debate that rages too hot and too often on this forum. The subject really should be put to rest.
APPRENTICE BUILDER As for people coming on the forum to get free info without doing any of the work, isn't that what this forum is all about? Not everyone has the time or the monetary resources to buy all the books, go to all the places, or frankly the amount of free time to do the research as some people do. If any wise man chooses to withold what he has learned, from those who would learn themselves, then he is less than useless. Isn't it a great thing, that none of our parents refused to answer our questions just because we hadn't put in the time and money to do the research ourselves?

 

[Rifleman1776]

Please note my qualifying words"

"saw"

and

"dunno"

 

[54ball]

OK, now we are getting somewhere. A documented straight barreled rifle, not a could be or what if, The Simon Lauk rifle. :thumbsup:

Alexander dates the rifle to 1790. It needs to be remembered that Lauk was an active gunsmith until his death in 1815.

It would be interesting to find out just when factory made straight barrels became available. I would also like to know if the Lauk barrel is hand forged.

You really can not count Amrstrong, as his rifles were made well into the percussion era when factory made straight barrels were available. I would also like to know if his barrels were hand forged.

Just from the rifle examples in Grenville County...
of the 8 rifles featured, 3 were swamped...

2 were straight with 1 possibly being an eighteenth century piece...

3 were tapered...


Not counting Armstrong, you have 1 out of seven with a straight barrel and it is circa 1790.

It would be interesting to find more true data and the ratios of straight vs swamp vs tapered from more originals.

See this thread can be an intelligent discussion.

From the rifles presented, what seems to be missing in modern reproductions is, hex tapered barrels. :hmm:

Hex is a correct term. Not hexagon but hex as in the hex mark at the muzzle that kept demons from riding the ball. :shocked2:

 

[Bruce Bogart]

I am not sure why I am wading in here but ....
When some offer thier opinion or advice MANY times the response is attacked with ulterior motives. Some of the threads turn into "I told you so" type conversations. Were there variations in barrels? Probably just as there are now. Do our materials compare to the originals? Heck no.
I believe these forums are for the exchange of ideas and information. Notice the word exchange. I am not advocating that those that aren't "experts" stay out of the conversation! Heck I'd get left out. Instead I give my opinion, and watch for intelligent counters, and maybe reformulate. Absolutes are not in my vocabulary.
The relics from the past are all we have to reference. I firmly believe that our materials are better, and many of the craftsmen are better than the "good old days". It's the spirit and the ideas and the artistic craftmenship alot of us are striving towards. Others just want it to go bang. Whatever floats your stick :v

 

[hanshi]

I think that's my problem, demons riding the prb. That's why I can't hit a blasted thing sometimes, okay, most of the time. Takes a juju man to life a mojo. :v:

 

[asbrown]

:thumbsup: To true Bogey. I'm one of those with little spare time or money to invest in research. I have a few books and have seen many and handled few original rifles(never got to do any measuring or spend any great time with any particular rifle) so any info I can glean from here is a bonus. When I ask questions I welcome all input but look for the responses of a certain few people to guage whether the overall consensus is correct. I'm not overly HC/PC but I do want to be able to say that my guns are at least "period possible". My big pet peeve is people who speak in absolutes. Unless you were actually there, historical record can rarely speak in the absolute, so we carefully couch our words. I too look for intelligent, well thought out, and reasoned responses, that are couched in an air of instruction, not criticism.
54Ball--thanks for your response. Maybe now you have a new venue to explore and report back to the rest of us about. (e.g. straight walled barrels before the introduction of "factory made" barrels) Wouldn't the fact that the John Armstrong rifle is a flintlock suggest it's possible manufacture prior to common use of factory barrels?

 

[LRB]

No. Flintlocks were made and used well after the percussion system appeared and was accepted.

 

[jdkerstetter]

I, for one, am really enjoying this thread! :thumbsup:

Enjoying, J.D.

 

[asbrown]

I don't think you can discount the Armstrong rifle so easily. Peter Alexander also states that Armstrong was the most prolific between 1790 and 1822 when he sold his tools. He also states that "please note that if one finds a swamped barrel on an Armstrong rifle, it will be a very minute change and probably a slight mistake in filing or grinding". This suggests Armstrong used only straight barrels. Alexander also notes that Armstrong continued to make his own locks when commercial ones were available. this suggests to me a man who took great pride in his skill and doesn't sound like someone who would buy factory made barrels to put in his fine rifles. Armstrong had a specific style and he stuck to it without change beginning to end.

So, this suggests the score should be 2 of 7 rifles with straight barrels and it may truly deserve more of your time spent in research. :idunno: :hmm: :v

 

[asbrown]

Wick, do we know deifinitively when the percussion system showed up in America? When did it become the primary ignition type? Or when was it at least commonly being used? I've never been able to get a good response to this. :idunno:

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

“Those who have everything given to them become lazy, selfish, and insensitive to the real values of life"

We could do this all day :blah:

I would suggest you get some literature beyond Peter Alexander and The Gunsmith of Grenville County

 

[54ball]

If you want to count Amrstrong, that's 2 out of 8.

I do not care for some of Alexander's opinions, especially on southern rifles. He makes no secret his disdain for these types of rifles. Statements like the later southern guns have poor architecture and all the truly great guns were gone by the 1840s.

If you want to see some architecture in a rifle look at a Bean, Gillespie or Soddy Daisy Appalachian rifle.

 

[54ball]

I think that's my problem, demons riding the prb.

That's easily remedied. Simply remove the barrel. Unbreach it and place it in a fast moving stream with the muzzle pointing upstream. After 3 days all the demons should be washed out of the barrel.

Then breach your barrel and mark a cross or the X of Andrew on the bottom flat below the front sight. This keeps the demons from reentering your now renewed demon free Hex barrel.

This works equally well on straight, tapered, swamped,octagonal to round and round tapered barrels. Rifle or smoothebore.. no matter.

Beck would use INRI on his barrels.

 

[jdkerstetter]

These guys have a point, the Gunsmiths of Greenville County is not reference material. :shake:

Peter Alexander cherry-picked the guns he wanted to use in the book and it is not a reliable sample of guns of any period.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[54ball]

I agree.

 

[asbrown]

ff Your absolutely correct on both accounts. Lazy people are a waste of oxygen, and we could do this all day, but to what end? :v

 

[asbrown]

Well, count it or not it's still proof of straight barreledguns and thats all I was asked to do. As for Alexanders opinions, I can't or won't defend someone elses opinions, only my own. I happen to like the architecture of the southern guns, especially those trimmed all in hand forged iron. :thumbsup:

 

[asbrown]

These guys have a point, the Gunsmiths of Greenville County is not reference material. :shake:

Peter Alexander cherry-picked the guns he wanted to use in the book and it is not a reliable sample of guns of any period.

Enjoy, J.D.

As I've said before I'm no historian, nor do I own an extensive library. Any material that gives facts or measurements of original rifles can be reference material. As to whether he cherry picked his guns, OK, I don't know, but again I'm not defending his writing simply citing it. I certainly wouldn't suggest these 8 rifles are a representative sample, just another piece of a much larger puzzle that obviously needs more research. :v

 

[Bruce Bogart]

One thing to keep in mind, those old time straight barrels are HEAVY. They didn't come in 7/8" across the flats. Of course they didn't shoot to pass the time back then (my opinion). If you'd pick up an old rifle it would suprise you on how heavy the barrel is. My .32 in a 3/4" barrel would never happen. I know now I'm known as a nonconformist traditionalist :shocked2: Rice makes a couple barrels in a more traditional shillouette. I have a Getz that's made to Bivins specifications, and it "may" be close to a traditional shillouette. All I can do is try. :v