about barrel configuration

[illuveatar]

I'm not taking any sides here because frankly I don't know what the argument is about anymore. But 54ball I think I need to comment on your post.

Folks this is an example of historical revisionism.

Even though it is something as trivial as the diameter and profile of gun barrels made 200 years ago it is revisionism just the same and that is dangerous.

Swamped barrels have been documented, photographed, traced and measured for decades. Several books have been written on the subject and many have spent their whole adult lives dedicated to the study of this subject.

To deny the existence of the swamped barrel in the face of overwhelming evidence is ludicrous and just a little scary. Whats more disturbing is how the band wagon filled up.

This post is not about the barrel measurements from 200 years ago. It is about how some would like to deny history and make up their own. That is a serious matter. It also about how some just love to embrace an untruth or more simply a lie.

This doesn't appear to be revisionism to me, I don't think anyone is seriously denying that swamped barrels existed on original American longrifles(maybe they are but I don't see it that way). What's been suggested is that straight barrels also existed and apparently smoothboreaddict has found a few documented (whether you like the opinions of the Alexander or not doesn't discount the gun he referenced). It seems to me that some folks are trying to deny the existence of straight barrels in the face of the evidence.

I don't claim any authority here but it's clear from what's been shared here that both of these barrel profiles existed back then. No doubt swamped barrels were more prevalent but I'm sure there were more than 2 straight barrels made in the 18th century.

 

[jdkerstetter]

I'm with you in that I'm not sure what the debate is either.

If it is about PC or HC of straight barrels, I am not a purist in dismissing any gun base strictly on barrel profile.

If there is a known example of an Armstrong with a straight barrel then build all you want with straight barrels and in my opinion you're OK.

On the other hand if every known Beck or Dickert or Albrecht is build with a swamped barrel I am of the opinion that guns built to their style should also be or they are not correct. If build with straight barrels the whole architecture is thrown off.

That's not to say you can't build a nice gun either way. That's just the difference between would-a-beens and could-a-beens. I only have a problem when someone passes a gun off as correct to style and it's not. J.M.2.C.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

For me the debate is simple, its about timeline.

Certain architectural as well as furniture changes happened at specific times, the cap lock did not happen during the French and Indian timeline.

It appears that Armstrong didn't build much before 1808, so there again you cannot state that you have an Armstrong rifle and try to represent it as a Revolutionary piece.

Armstrong was building during the time of ready made locks and barrels, so it would seem very realistic that he would build with some straight barrels.

 

[hanshi]

That's info I can use. I'll start off doing the stream thing with only one and if it starts shooting better I'll do the rest. :hmm:

 

[hanshi]

Wait a min - it! I'm lazy and proud of it. And besides I don't breath your precious oxygen; I breath argon. :bull:

 

[asbrown]

Hanshi, you are nuts :youcrazy: GOD bless ya brother :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: and keep-em comin.

 

[asbrown]

Armstrong bought 3 lots in Emmitsburg Md in 1799. He also took an apprentice in 1799 and another in 1801. This seems to suggest he was doing quite well by this time. Not 1808. Noone ever suggested they were Wartime rifles, just federal period, the times of the great guns.
Armstrong also continued to make his own locks at a time when they were readily available at general stores. It goes without saying thats its also 'POSSIBLE' he made his own barrels. I guess we'd have to find someone who owned one to ask whether it was forged or factory made.

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

I stand corrected on the dates, I was in a hurry this morning and didn't read far enough into the article.

So we do not believe that Armstrong was born in Emmitsburg. We think he moved there about 1793. This would be after becoming an apprentice to Schroyer in 1786, at age 14, and completing his training seven years later in 1793. He would then have become a “journeyman” and the name itself suggests that he moved away from his master and set up shop on his own almost certainly in Emmitsburg

Its not about any one builder, its about blanket theorys that accept all variations as being plausible.

Today people generaly look at the history of the French and Indian war thru the Civil War as a short time framed event, and so things tend to be placed within a time frame that they didn't exist in.

By the time the percussion era came about things in the gun building world were moving along at a fairly rapid pace, straight barrels were easier to mass produce so became the standard.

This was not the case during the earlier eras.