Simply put, the Germans were shooting up close and personal, the Americans were shooting long distance.
Robby
Robby
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
American Jaeger w/Early Virginia furniture
- Thread starter Treestalker
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Maybe, but there are plenty of deer and mountainous game also hunted there- and certainly Chamois hunting was popular too. Someone probably carried their guns for them, but it's still a pretty small target at distance.
Why would early settlers (when the long barrel became a thing) shooting at distance with animals that hadn't fully developed fear of man, in a mostly forested east?
If you have handled an original rifle- the sights are nearly worthless. A better sight would provide more benefits than longer barrel length.
One of the oft repeated "facts" given about Jaegers is that they were rifled guns loaded with a very tight fitting ball, patched or not, that was initially loaded with the aid of a mallet. We use short starters today, but the current thoughi is they are not H. Correct. Even with a coned muzzle you can only start a ball/patch so tight conveniently - what would be the more accurate combo a tight fitting ball in a Jaeger or a looser fitted ball in an ALR?
I don't necessarily think the Kindig Golden Age guns were that common- most were probably owned by the wealthy- but I remember something like 45% were smoothbore rifles. Would that aid in longer range shooting than a rifled Jaeger? And the Indian fighting was much reduced or eliminated by then, so any smoothbore/fast reload for fighting thing wouldn't really hold up.
Hope you/any are taking this with the spirit is was meant- not trying to be contrarian- just curious if the oft reported facts are really supported or just myths. Kind of like no petroleum products in BP rifles, even though it's been proven untrue a million times it still gets told as fact daily.
Einsiedler
40 Cal.
AlanG,
Yes, I cobbled it together. Forgot I had the barrel. Found it moving stuff out of old shed into new shop. Had a bad mud dauber nest in it. Hence the 29" barrel!
I thought it would be fun. I chase small pigs with it. I’m from the school of “pick up pig with one hand” size of pig for pit.
(49 here this morning! Time to go shoot a shoat!)
Yes, I cobbled it together. Forgot I had the barrel. Found it moving stuff out of old shed into new shop. Had a bad mud dauber nest in it. Hence the 29" barrel!
I thought it would be fun. I chase small pigs with it. I’m from the school of “pick up pig with one hand” size of pig for pit.
(49 here this morning! Time to go shoot a shoat!)
Pete G
76 Cal.
I believe that the longer barrel was for sight radius, which makes a longer barrel appear to be more accurate. Peter Alexander's theory is just that; a theory. Interesting but unsubstantiated.
Yes, Alan, being a wise guy is my default setting.
I like theories and making semi-educated guesses. It’s when those guesses become “fact” that I feel uneasy. It’s my scientific training I suppose.
Long or short or in between, early rifles are sure cool!
I like theories and making semi-educated guesses. It’s when those guesses become “fact” that I feel uneasy. It’s my scientific training I suppose.
Long or short or in between, early rifles are sure cool!
I suppose I should suppose!
Robby
Robby
No one appreciates a wise-a** more than me! Hard to tell on forums sometimes though.
Agree with you, but when it comes to history theories and educated guesses are all we have to go on a lot of the time. I know I've read some stuff from Wallace Gusler that was extremely well researched that would make a lot of people very uncomfortable in regards to rifles.
Well pretty much just about everything we read about longrifles is pretty unsubstantiated. I would think most here would have a copy of his book, and that part is well thought out and backed up pretty well with documents etc. Not saying I agree, but it's as good as other stuff I've read over the years.
Certainly understand the sight radius thing- but that was part of my point- a shorter barreled gun with good sight systems is more accurate than a longer sight radius with awful sights. Those smiths certainly could have improved their sights if they wanted to, they must have thought them adequate. The original (admittedly not a ton) rifles I have handled had front sights that were maybe 1/16" high and couldn't be used the way we use sights today. Even when you see guys that build/buy guns to match classic rifles quite exactingly, rarely (I've never seen one) match the original sights.
Look at the St Louis fur trade eras. Certainly shooting in the west is done at far greater ranges than the east, but barrels got shorter. Generally accepted that's because of horseback carry. But the sights on those guns were vastly superior to the classic ALR's and that would have been better long range guns even with the shorter barrels.
Stophel
75 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Messages
- 5,963
- Reaction score
- 869
Even with my declining eyesight, I don't really have a problem with fine sights. Little V notch rear and ^ pointy top front sights.
This myth persists that the shorter German rifle barrel (I flat out REFUSE to call them "Jaegers") somehow evolved into the longer and longer American rifle barrel. And now people are saying that rifle barrels got longer because the Indians liked long barrels? That's kind of a stretch (get it?).
The Germans had long rifle barrels from the beginning. Well, not quite the beginning. I think the real origin of the "short" rifle barrel is the fact that in the 16th and 17th centuries (and into the 18th), rifles were generally wheel lock and fitted into a cheek stock, just like crossbows generally were done. No butt to go against your shoulder. This, naturally, would make a long barrel rather difficult to hold up, with no butt to balance and hang onto. So, rifle barrels remained "short". Further, I believe that 18th century German rifles were at least as often as not, used for offhand target shooting, rather than hunting. Target shooting was THE sport in Germany at the time, and everybody and their brother came out to shoot, drink, eat, and have a big carnival. The shorter barrels balance much better. I suspect that this is the main reason that German rifles will most often (but not always) have dual-range sights with flip up leaves, and the "Nadelstecher" needle set triggers.. which aren't the best choice for a hunting gun. I believe also, that when they were used for hunting, having a quick handling, accurate gun (so you won't shoot your own dog when shooting at a deer or boar or whatever held at bay) was what was important. Ultra long range accuracy was not really a big concern.
Now... long rifle barrels? There are a fair number of longer barreled German rifles. Many are bench rest target rifles, with 40-some-odd inch long heavy barrels, bench hooks, and pull-out shoulder rests in the heel of the buttplate.
You will see some number of German rifles, other than the bench guns, with barrels in the region of three feet, but they made them even longer too. Sometimes these are of large caliber, and sometimes of very small caliber, used for stalking birds (and presumably other small game). The advantages of longer barrels (sighting radius, powder efficiency, etc.) were known, and were applied to guns made in the German lands, when desired. I think that when they came to America, they simply chose the longer barrels because they weren't doing that much schuetzenfest stuff here, and the advantages of the longer barrels were considered more important.
This myth persists that the shorter German rifle barrel (I flat out REFUSE to call them "Jaegers") somehow evolved into the longer and longer American rifle barrel. And now people are saying that rifle barrels got longer because the Indians liked long barrels? That's kind of a stretch (get it?).
The Germans had long rifle barrels from the beginning. Well, not quite the beginning. I think the real origin of the "short" rifle barrel is the fact that in the 16th and 17th centuries (and into the 18th), rifles were generally wheel lock and fitted into a cheek stock, just like crossbows generally were done. No butt to go against your shoulder. This, naturally, would make a long barrel rather difficult to hold up, with no butt to balance and hang onto. So, rifle barrels remained "short". Further, I believe that 18th century German rifles were at least as often as not, used for offhand target shooting, rather than hunting. Target shooting was THE sport in Germany at the time, and everybody and their brother came out to shoot, drink, eat, and have a big carnival. The shorter barrels balance much better. I suspect that this is the main reason that German rifles will most often (but not always) have dual-range sights with flip up leaves, and the "Nadelstecher" needle set triggers.. which aren't the best choice for a hunting gun. I believe also, that when they were used for hunting, having a quick handling, accurate gun (so you won't shoot your own dog when shooting at a deer or boar or whatever held at bay) was what was important. Ultra long range accuracy was not really a big concern.
Now... long rifle barrels? There are a fair number of longer barreled German rifles. Many are bench rest target rifles, with 40-some-odd inch long heavy barrels, bench hooks, and pull-out shoulder rests in the heel of the buttplate.
You will see some number of German rifles, other than the bench guns, with barrels in the region of three feet, but they made them even longer too. Sometimes these are of large caliber, and sometimes of very small caliber, used for stalking birds (and presumably other small game). The advantages of longer barrels (sighting radius, powder efficiency, etc.) were known, and were applied to guns made in the German lands, when desired. I think that when they came to America, they simply chose the longer barrels because they weren't doing that much schuetzenfest stuff here, and the advantages of the longer barrels were considered more important.
Einsiedler
40 Cal.
Stophel,
On a side note
Are you also a fan of Carl Maria Von Weber’s opera, "Der Freischutz”?
My little Jäger is aptly named Annchen.
A neat opera that has it all. Shooting, magic rifle balls, and a happy ending. ( and the Jägerchor!)
Thanks for posting those above photos! Very cool pieces!!!
On a side note
Are you also a fan of Carl Maria Von Weber’s opera, "Der Freischutz”?
My little Jäger is aptly named Annchen.
A neat opera that has it all. Shooting, magic rifle balls, and a happy ending. ( and the Jägerchor!)
Thanks for posting those above photos! Very cool pieces!!!
That's kind of a gross miss-characterization there. Particularly without reading the chapter in Alexanders (readily available) book where he lays things out with some documentation. The guy has been involved with both Williamsburg Gunsmith Shop, and worked for Shumway- it's a naive disservice to dismiss him out of hand. I'm not saying I believe it, but it's not some crackpot theory.
I should point out in the same chapter he discusses and shows that Germans were making longer barreled guns for a long time, and that they were also occasional using metal patch-boxes which is also quoted ad nauseum as being a strictly American invention.
Those are some really nice guns!
???
So, you casually "flip" through a book, find a single page disagreeable, and then dismiss the rest of the book and the author without further reading?
What author; or any How To, or book on History passes that muster?
I mean- The Gunsmith of Grenville County is one of the most recommended books on this forum.
Stophel
75 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Messages
- 5,963
- Reaction score
- 869
It was NOT my intention to get into any argument over Mr. Alexander or his methods or ideas, which have been much debated before, here and elsewhere. He is a good gunsmith, and may be a swell guy, but, since you seem intent on pushing the issue (are you his publicist or brother or something?), if you must know, actually, I found quite a few pages "disagreeable". When I saw the rod pipe diagram, though, that was enough. I feel I'm in fairly good company with that assessment too, which is all I will say about it.
People need to study and research things for themselves, and stop taking the word of "experts" or "authority figures" as unquestioned gospel... which I see all too often in all aspects of the world today.
People need to study and research things for themselves, and stop taking the word of "experts" or "authority figures" as unquestioned gospel... which I see all too often in all aspects of the world today.
Last edited:
Largely agree with you there; but conversely how do you "study and research things" without relying on previous information from recognized experts or authority figures? I doubt there are less than 50 people in the US who have the training, combined with access to important period guns/collections and (often limited access archived) historical records/bill of ladings etc.?
The current trend of discarding experts have lead to the current increase in Flat Earthers, faked moon landing beliefs, Twin Tower conspiracy theories and wacky extremist radio talkshows. Heck, ad BP and petroleum products can't be mixed to that too.
Anyway- didn't mean to contribute to hijacking the OP's thread, which also interested me greatly.
There are plenty of experts who have not written books. There are plenty of book writers who are not expert. Sometimes things line up but where things are essentially unproven, the tendency to go with what an expert has hypothesized is one approach. Another approach is to keep the question open.
I have seen where outstanding builders who have handled thousands of originals could not pass a simple logic class. I have seen guns attributed - not hypothesized, but attributed - to a maker with no signed guns.
As a scientist who has been through the peer review process on both sides and served on editorial board of scientific journals and reviews grant applications, this is anathema to me.
I have seen where outstanding builders who have handled thousands of originals could not pass a simple logic class. I have seen guns attributed - not hypothesized, but attributed - to a maker with no signed guns.
As a scientist who has been through the peer review process on both sides and served on editorial board of scientific journals and reviews grant applications, this is anathema to me.
Treestalker
Treestalker
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2014
- Messages
- 4,051
- Reaction score
- 3,748
- Location
- Third Pond from the Great God Helios
Beautiful Einsiedler! My furniture is almost exactly like yours, but in Iron. What length is your barrel?Fearing a good traditionalist flaming, I’ll post this meagre and amateurish creation of mine anyway!
Einsiedler
40 Cal.
Best I remember about 29". Like I said there was a really bad spot in it I could not get out. I cut off and used as much as I could get out of it to use.
Similar threads
