Buying a Flintlock Rifle

[Matt85]

in my opinion strait barrels look strange and throw the guns balance off. ive got a pedersoli longrifle with a strait barrel and the balance doesnt feel right. its very nose heavy which is fine for shooting off a bench but makes the gun unconfortable shooting offhand.

some shooters do prefer strait barrels though.

-matt

 

[MacRob46]

To expand a little, the barrel is thicker at the breech, tapers to a smaller diameter in the middle then flares back out at the muzzle. This improves balance and reduces over all weight and looks pretty good too. For example, a Colerain American Heritage 44" swamped barrel in .40 to .50 caliber starts out at one inch at the breech, tapers to .816 inch 12 inches from the breech continues to taper for the next 16 inches at which point it is .718 inches, holds that diameter for six more inches then flares out to .865 inches at the muzzle.

Do you notice it, visually, just by looking at it?

If you sight down the barrel you can see it but just to glance at the rifle it is not that obvious.

 

[LaBonte]

There is a good reason for swamping a barrel. If you tapered a barrel from breech to muzzle you would remove a lot of weight, but your front sight would be really tall. With a swamped barrel, the increased muzzle diameter allows for a smaller front sight while still removing quite a bit of weight.

Many Klatch

Sorry but this one of those mythos about tapered barrels that is just plain wrong - for instance most of the Hawken Bros rifles still in existence have tapered barrels and the sights are generally no taller than those of their rifles that used swamped barrels. In addition most of the English Sporting rifles of the post 1830 era also have tapered barrels without exceptionally tall front sights. Most of the Hawken Bros barrels were sighted at 100-150 yards with straight tapered so the front sight remained. As an exampled the Bridger Hawken rifle for instance has a 1 1/8" to 1" 36" inch long straight tapered barrel with a low front sight - it was sighted in for 150 yards based on testing.
I've owned a number of originals over the years as well as repros with both type barrels and the front sight were generally about the same height with just a VERY few exceptions.

 

[jdkerstetter]

Chuck, I think this myth is based on misconception base on what people are used to seeing with modern guns where the drastic taper often requires the front sight to be mounted high on a ramp style base.

As you pointed out, in a barrel tapering only an 1/8" over its total length the sights are on a plane that results in their being less than an 1/8" off at their base. This difference is so negligible that the front sight isn't required to be high.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Mainehunt]

Very interesting topic.

Kev

 

[nwtradegun]

check track of the wolf. you have a 10 day return
if not what u want

 

[Many Klatch]

JD, I always wondered about that. The current wisdom is just what you said, but the original sights were often only 1/4" tall. So I think swamping the barrel to keep the sights short is somewhat valid.

Many Klatch

 

[jdkerstetter]

1/4"? I've seen a bunch of barley corns that were right around 1/8".

I'm not saying that swamping wasn't a way to keep the front sight on plane with the rear. I don't even want to go there, though I'd like to see some period proof of just why they are swamped.

I was only posting about the tapered barrel myth. As in the example, there is about a 1/16" or so difference in the rear and front sights on barrel that only tapers 1/8" over it's length. Hardly anything to get excited about and easily compensated for. In fact, it's likely that you will find simular differences on some swamped barrels, depending on the degree of swamp and where their sights are located.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Col. Batguano]

Chuck, I think this myth is based on misconception base on what people are used to seeing with modern guns where the drastic taper often requires the front sight to be mounted high on a ramp style base.

As you pointed out, in a barrel tapering only an 1/8" over its total length the sights are on a plane that results in their being less than an 1/8" off at their base. This difference is so negligible that the front sight isn't required to be high.

Enjoy, J.D.

Agree. On a modern rifle like a Win Mod 70, the breech is over 1.1", and muzzle a little over 1/2", or a .3" ramp would be required to get them level from the bore center line. Since most modern rifles are usually equipped with scopes, most people don't notice it.

I tend to think that swamping a barrel was as much a stylistic thing as it was a functional one. Remember, the traditional long rifle had its' roots in the German Jaegers. The long barrel evolved as an adaptation from European military arms of the period, and the Indians' demand for it.

 

[Billnpatti]

A swamped barrel is not noticably thinner in the middle. The difference in diameter is slight but sufficient to make a difference in the feel and balance of a gun. Even though the difference is small, it is enough to make the gun a more aesthetically pleasing. :hmm: