Barrel length

[hmeier4799]

Why was the Pa. Longrifles developed to have such long barrels? I have read claims that it was to decrease the noise in Indian country!!!! Also, that the barrels were long in order to burn all of the powder.

 

[dryfly]

Number two.

 

[tg]

When thinking of the "evolution" of barrel length, remember that in 1700 trade gun and fowler barrels were often 4 to 4 1/2 feet in length.

 

[Zonie]

When thinking of the "evolution" of barrel length, remember that in 1700 trade gun and fowler barrels were often 4 to 4 1/2 feet in length.

And before that some of the Massachusetts Bay settlers had "...with musket boare 6 foote long 1/2" and... ******* muskett boare 5-1/2 foote longe.". :shocking:

 

[rich pierce]

Why was the Pa. Longrifles developed to have such long barrels? I have read claims that it was to decrease the noise in Indian country!!!! Also, that the barrels were long in order to burn all of the powder.

Nobody knows. There have been a lot of theories put forth as fact but nobody knows. Writers have made nice little stories and we've come to believe them. The favorite story is that the longrifle is a melding of the long English fowler and the short Germanic jaeger. There are so many things wrong with this story that it's almost hysterical.

First of all, the idea that all European rifles of the 1700s had short barrels such as is often seen on "jaegers" is wrong. There are plenty of examples of longer barreled Germanic guns of the 1700s.

Next, we'd have to assume that maybe Germanic gunsmiths had to come to America to see a long fowler and have a "Eureka moment and design a long barreled rifle? I don' think so. Muskets and fowlers all over the European continent were long barreled.

Was it because the colonies had "bad powder" and it took longer to burn? Pure speculation. I'd be focusing on improving the powder! Much easier than re-configuring rifles, forging long barrels, reaming and rifling and then making a longer stock reqiring a longer stock blank, etc.

My ideas are no better than the next guys but I'll admit I'm just guessing. I'm guessing it was the longer sighting plane that appealed to the Pennsylvania and Virginian backwoodsman when he was shooting for beef or shooting for game. And sometimes styles happen just because they happen. Like fins on Cadillacs. It would be funny if we tried to explain them by function.

 

[MSW]

I've seen a sea of ink on this topic and, frankly, I like Rich Pierce's take on it. After all, a longer barrel does look kinda cool, and, despite claims to the contrary, settlers did have a sense of style. Otherwise, why bother with all that carving, etc?

 

[Stumpkiller]

Here we have a group of gunsmiths who are familiar with, and possibly even have in their apprenticeship in Europe in some instances, made 30" or 31" barrel Jaegers. Why, in a country where metal is expensive and precious, would they lengthen the barrel? Did the Americans shoot at longer ranges? Have less efficient powder? Was it fashion/style and nothing else?

I have no idea, but (as always) I 'll throw out some thoughts for conversation's sake:

Look at it from the other perspective. They "shortened" the then standard barrel length of 46" as the Bess was wearing and made handy 44" or even 42" carbine barrel lengths for ease in slipping through the woods. (My 42" Light Infantry Fusil was described as the "new carbine series" because it had a short 42" barrel and sub-caliber .662" bore). Men were used to carrying and using long barrelled muskets, so the rifles were not unique to their eyes as they are to ours.

In a time before prescription corrective lenses the closer the front sight was to the target the better off the gunner was. I am learning this myself.

I have also heard the powder burn theory, and that has some merit. Imagine storing your powder in a wood keg on a dirt floor, especially that which had to be shipped here before the mills got running. I'm not sure how Fat George regulated and taxed them. Some things we couldn't "legally" produce here even though we had the ability. In any case, what you had with you was out in the elements.

 

[aragorn]

A really interesting theory, though somewhat heretical to the patriotic tradition, is that many Pennsylvania rifles in the colonial period were for Indians. The Indians had begun with the English and French trade muskets, had grown accustomed to the long barrels, and wanted the same length when they went for the rifles which German gunsmiths were beginning to produce in Pennsylvania in the mid 18th century. It certainly makes sense that the Indians were a major market for early American longrifles, as they were the ones doing most of the hunting for the fur and hide trade, and not only the length but also the workmanship of rifles could have had a lot to do with Indian taste and the status of rifles as prestige belongings.

 

[rich pierce]

Good one, new ideas are worth thinking about! There IS a lot of documentation for rifles being made for the Indians in the pre-Revolutionary period. The Indians were a more important driving force for trade than most people consider. Many writings from traders indicate the Indians wanted the trade guns this way or that way and will have them no other way.

 

[Zonie]

Interesting Rich. I have not heard of the indians being interested in rifles.
From my readings, I was under the impression that they liked the smooth bore Trade guns supplied by the French and the British, to the exclusion of others.
Those guns as I understand it, were intentionally made with smooth bores because the indians realized they could be used for shooting shot as well as ball.
The French? and the British also realized that by providing the indians with smooth bore guns, they were, in effect, limiting the indians ability to shoot at long distances with any accuracy. ::

 

[tg]

There may be some merit to the theory that the indians were provided with smaller bore guns so if they were turned against the givers of the guns they would not be a match for the heavy miitary balls of the period, as large bores were equated to superior firepower.

 

[rich pierce]

I'll have to go check sources but what sticks in my mind is that the Delaware (Lenapi) tribe in particular preferred rifles even in the French and Indian War period. Maybe Okwaho will chime in here, the man has a wealth of knowledge and an extensive library.

 

[riarcher]

Reasons are obviouse.
Some are:
Pole vaulting streams,
Proding a shot bear from greater distances,
Use as a jigging stick for fishing,
In a fight, the longer the club the further the reach.
While being nice to look at, they had to be practicle first. :what: :sorry: :winking:

 

[dlemaster]

Rich
In John Heckwelder's journal he states that the Delaware and Shawnee had learned to use rifle guns and preferred them, or words to that effect.
If anyone is interested I will look up the exact reference.
I also recall he stated that the Delaware had learned to restock their guns, the stocks of which are neat and well made, since time was no object to an indian.
This was in the 1780's

Regards, Dave

 

[Stumpkiller]

Which Indians? To say Indians prefer rifles or smoothbores is a wide-paintbrush. Like saying Americans prefer long sleeved shirts. Depends where they live and how they make their living.

I'll have to dig out my copy of Frontier Rifleman. I believe there are several period quotes to the effect that: "they have taken up rifles in the manner of Indians" or something like that. One sutler said it was easier to carry lead ingot because the townsfolk and Indians preferred casting their own balls for their rifles. And there is another reference as mentioned above to the Delaware preferring rifles.

A Britsh officer lamented that he could never get the Indians closer to a fort than the range of the Indian's rifles (they're no dummies).

 

[aragorn]

There's some really interesting discussion of the Indian question in Peter Alexander's The Gunsmith of Grenville County (eg p 13-14), who quotes other articles. He quotes a letter from trader Daniel Pepper to Governor Lyttelton of 30 November 1756:

'I think it highly necessary to inform your Excellency that the Indians are daily getting into the Method of useing Riffle Guns instead of Traders which they purchase wherever they can at monstrous (sic) Price, as they can kill point Blank at two hundred Yards Distance.'

He also quotes an article claiming that the North Carolina Catawba leader, King Hagler, was reported by eyewitness Maurice Moore as being buried in 1763 with 'his silver mounted rifle, a fine powder flask, gold and silver moneys, tobacco and ... other personal possessions.'

There's lots more of interest I'll try and sift through here. But one really fascinating point occurs to me: if rifles were being buried as prestige belongings, is that what happened to most high-quality longrifles that were made specifically for Indians? There don't seem to be many longrifles surviving with Indian style decoration, so maybe that's what happened to them. Unfortunately we'll never know from archaeology as Indian burials are sacrosanct.

There's a great PhD topic, or book, in this - there must be plenty of archival material like the letter quoted above which have never been studied, at least never from this perspective.