• 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

barn gun barrels

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

streetsniper

36 Cal.
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
I'm considering a barn gun and wondered which barrel would be best. A 36" or 42". What would the difference be ballistically, esthetically,etc. I would appreciate the opinions and advice of the experienced on this forum. Thanx in advance.
 
The difference ballistically is pretty much nil. The longer barrel will give a longer sight radius which does slightly improve accuracy, especially for those of us who's eyesight requires a rear sight mounted far down the barrel. Esthetically, yes, a longrifle should live up to the name, long and slim, and 42" is actually on the short side for that look. As to general handling, I've not found a 42" barrel to be at all awkward or unhandy in the woods, but in the house or especially in a vehicle, that long barrel can be a pain. Go long, if you don't like it you can always shorten it later. :grin:
 
I'm leaning for smoothbore. I want something to use on deer in shotgun only territory as well as turkey and maybe pheasant. A 20 guage is the smallest allowed in NJ for turkey. As for time period early 1700.
 
"Early 1700"? Definitely smoothbore. There are still a fair number of early 18th century guns from New England that would probably qualify for the nebulous title of "barn gun". No buttplate, or sheet iron buttplates nailed on, simple sheet iron triggerguards, etc. Of course, if you want a lock of this time period, you're pretty much S.O.L. If you're interested in early 18th century guns, the single best book for you to get is "Flintlock Fowlers", available from Scurlock publishing (the "Muzzloader Magazine" people). There are decent photos of several guns that would be suitable for recreation.

As much as I like them, I truly believe that for most of the 18th century, the "barn gun" (meaning those of "rifle type form") is pretty much a modern romantic fantasy. The "barn gun" as it is usually recognized seems to have basically come about in the early 19th century, and there seem to be rather large numbers of barn guns that still exist, primarily from the Lehigh and Berks county areas in PA. My VERY strong belief is that in the 18th century, a rifle had a buttplate, sideplate, etc. because that's just the way they were supposed to be. The average gun would generally have a bit of carving here and there as well. I think that the no buttplate, no sideplate, no nosecap, sheet metal triggerguard type gun just simply was not done in the 18th century.

The 19th century "barn gun" would also be considered ROUGH. So much so, that most moderns simply could not stand it. Rough, oversize wood, little finish, and probably no finish. Literally "lock stock and barrel" and that's it. It goes "bang", with NO effort wasted on fit or finish.
 
I agree with Stophel here.The gun itself is older than its cousins,the canoe and blanket guns. The name like that of the Tennessee "Poor Boy"is strictly 20th century and likely no earlier than the 1950's.I have been collecting, shooting, and studying American longrifles for 46 +/- years and except for the "Barn Gun" which apparently was found in the very late 18th century in Berks County and the Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania the other three guns were unknown to collectors and serious students of the American Longrifle.Nevertheless I had never heard of these cheaply made and ultra plain guns being called "Barn guns".
Tom Patton
 
I'd get the smooth bore with the longer barrel. I like (actually prefer)barn guns. IMO they definately existed in the 18th c.

I've seen too many guns cobbled together with parts from other guns.
 
At a show several years ago, I saw a rather neat "barn gun". It was maple stocked, and totally unstained and probably finished only with the sweat from the users hands. A nice deep yellow color! No buttplate, and it had a wooden box (lid missing). There apparently was a slip of metal inlet into the butt for the box lid spring to catch on, in lieu of the buttplate, but that area of the stock was busted off. The barrel was a reused Brown Bess musket barrel, and the lock was a 1760's period English import lock with the shallow round face and engraving. It was a straightforward, plain, straight-wristed gun of nondescript form. As I recall, the triggerguard is missing, but had inlets for what was probably a musket triggerguard (don't remember for sure). Definitely one of the "cobbled together" guns that you do see here and there, particularly from the Rev. War. This gun could be 1780's....or it could be 1820's, who could say.
 
I was wondering, which would you think was a better all around gun,the barn gun , the tulle or early english trade gun. I don't think any one of them did everything well. But what would be the best all around or at least the best compromise.
 
If all were the same bore size the only difference would likley be the fit of the individual useing them, a gun from the Tulle armoury could be of several styles (Buccaneer, Grenadeir, De Chase) which gives a few more fit options.and with some a bayonet.
 
I'm caught between the simplicity of the barn gun and the elegance of the early fusil de chaise. I can only afford one project right now and would like something that does almost everything well. I know it's subjective and these types of discussions usually fuel heated debates. So I'll sit back and let you guys slug it out so I can get some kind of consensus. I appreciate any advice/opinions on this. I've got money burning a hole in my pocket and would like to make a purchase before life rears its ugly head and I have to spend it on something I need instead of want.
 
Thats a tough one. I would pick something light allso, maybe a Northwest Trade Gun? flinch
 
I would go with a Carolina gun. Practical, light, shot or ball, still elegant in all it's simplicity.
 
I have had a Chiefs gun, from NStarr West, a NW gun from them, and I have a fusil de Chase ordinare from TOW parts with the cows foot stock and I have found the latter to be the best fitting/shooting of them all for me, some do not like this stock shape however, the fusil fin by Davis or Mr. Brooks Carolina gun would both be good choices as well,the anticipated use of the gun(shot or ball or both) might influence bore size and even gun type, if little ball will be used and a lot of wingshooting is expected a fowler fitted to the individual would be a good choice, to sum it up, it has to be what you want/need in a gun.The early trade or hunting guns can also be very simple in finish and furniture. I would get some books or online sources and view as many differeent guns as posiible and weigh the merits of one against the other with your requirements in mind, this would be a place to start.next decide if HC/PC is a factor as this can shut the door on many of todays offereings, if a few guns remain as potential candidates query owners about the suppliers service and the quality/shootability of the gun.
 
You've had some great advice here. A long, slender, and light smoothbore would serve you well for all your intended uses and fit your stated time period. A French fusil de chasse or Dutch trade gun would work as would an early English trade gun. A nice long barrel to sight over will make hitting what you aim at much easier and offers no down side as far as carrying or using in cover. And it will handle shot well, to. If it were me, this is the way I would go.
 
Back
Top