Calibers and history

[kelleyjk]

Thought this topic might generate some general discussin and learnin. I'll get to more specific questions near the end.

Last few months been re-introducin the wife to shooting. She'd been "informally trained" during our 1st 8 years of marriage as I had more time for shooting then, did PPC, silhouetes (still cant spell them) muzzleloadin huntin and just plinkin. Untold hours at the reloading bench.

Ive been trying to explain caliber designations to her. Why a 38 is "special" why it works in our .357. What 45/70 means as opposed to what 30.06 means, and dont even get me started about the NATO desingations and that whole metric system which we all know was a commie plot :cursing: Yes she actaully saw my boxes of shiney new 7.62x51 and wondered why I called it .308 as you can imagine shes now more confused than ever. We didnt even discuss bore vs groove, .303 which is .312 (as I aint the most articulate teacher may be partly responsible)

So as it pertains to ML, I thought Id seek general information and knowledge from the group on typical calibers, regions, makers periods etc. Knowing that some individuals made the weapon then made the moulds for the balls to fit it, and some converted military arms, and barrels freshed out to the next largest bore etc. I reckon standardizationalism was not on anyones mind 'cept maybe the Army procurement / QM folks.

So where'd we get a .40? I read this was typical of Tennessee Kentucky types, maybe other eastern long rifles, did anyone back there even build or shoot calibers larger than .50? I thought the leather stocking boys all shot 32s or 36s and figgered a .40 was their magnum bear gun or somethin.

Where the heck did a .54 come from? Seems like such a small jump from .50 (yeah I know it weighs more etc but why not .56 ? Was the .58 already around in such numbers as to preclude that?

Id be inerested in learning more about civilian calibers their origins ie. were some of them brand/maker developed and marketed etc like modern smokeless rounds.

Inquirin minds and whatnot.

 

[Vaino]

Considering the use of the gun, here's possibly what was said..." That looks about right"....Fred

 

[zimmerstutzen]

The real early guns were often whoppers, inch bores etc. I think it was a matter of technological development of powder, metallurgy and knowhow. From the early matchlocks thrrough the Borwn besses, and flintlock Jaeger rifles they tended to be large bores. As industrial precision got better, bores shrank and barrels got long and then short again. Military uses needed standardization. the concept of interchangeable parts came along, Military guns could be largely standardized with precision.

with the evolution from flinters to cartridge guns in the first half of the 1800's, the industrial revolution was in it's full swing. As steel processes became better, even more precision in manufacturing was possible and the modern small bores could be made at reasonable mass produced expense. It seems to me that if we compared the time lines of technological advances, scientific metallurgical advances and manufacturing advances naturally led to smaller bores and more precision firearms.

 

[rawhide]

well from what little I do know the guns in the east were long and slender stocks around .32-45 kentucky stile or southern mountain. as the men moved west they noticed the guns were heavy and hard to hold onto on a horse. so the shorter guns half stocks came in to play. and as they incountered bigger game they found they needed bigger calibers for buffilo elk grizzlys. hope this helps ya out.

 

[hoochiepapa]

I've read just the opposite. The early guns were large smooth bores, .69 and .72 or so. If you read Tom Grinslade's book Flintlock Fowlers, You'll see how many of them were used in the rev war. The rifles used for sniping during the war were predominantly .50 or there abouts. As time went on and the colonials decimated the deer herds, buffalo, etc., the bores became smaller because of the cost of lead and powder, and small game was now what they hunted for food. And around the same time, there were barrel makers that supplied the gunsmith's and they made whatever they had call and cherries for. That was when certain calibers became standardized.
HAPPY VETERANS DAY!!!! atriot:

 

[ohio ramrod]

Just my personal opinion and totally undocumented, but I believe the early eastern guns were either large bore smoothbores or smaller caliber rifles.Since the rifles had mostly soft iron barrels they were often "refreshed" this would take a 32 out to 36, then 36 to 38, to 40 , to 45 , to 54 to 58 etc. The max being dertermined by the barrel thickness. As the frontier expanded westward the initial calibers were larger and the barrels shorter. :idunno:

 

[George]

So as it pertains to ML, I thought Id seek general information and knowledge from the group on typical calibers, regions, makers periods etc.

Here's a snapshot of the situation at the end of the 18th century. A young Irishman named Isaac Weld spent 2 years traveling in America and Canada and wrote "Travels Through the States of North America and the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, During the Years of 1795, 1796 and 1797". In it he says:

"The rifled barrel guns, commonly used in America, are nearly of the length of a musket, and carry leaden balls from the size of thirty to sixty to the pound. Some hunters prefer those of a small bore, because they require but little ammunition; others prefer such as have a wide bore, because the wound which they inflict is more certainly attended with death; the wound, however, made by a ball discharged from one of these guns is always very dangerous.

30 balls to the pound is equal to .54 caliber and 60 to the pound is about .42 caliber.

Just because we gun nuts are interested in such stuff, here's the rest of that quotation, although it doesn't pertain to the question under discussion:

"The inside of the barrel is fluted, and the groves run in a spiral direction from one end of the barrel to the other, consequently when the ball comes out it has a whirling motion round its own axis, at the same time that it moves forward, and when it enters into the body of an animal, it tears up flesh in a dreadful manner. The best of powder is chosen for the rifle barrel gun, and after a proper proportion of it is put down the barrel, the ball is enclosed in a small bit of linen rag, well greased at the outside, and then forced down with a thick ramrod. The grease and the bits of rag, which are called patches, are carried in a little box at the butt-end of the gun. The best rifles are furnished with two triggers, one of which being first pulled sets the other, that is, alters the spring, so that it will yield even to the slight touch of a feather. They are also furnished with double sights along the barrel, as fine as those of a surveying instrument. An experienced marksman, with one of these guns, will hit an object not larger than a crown piece, to a certainty, at the distance of one hundred yards...Were I, however, to tell you all the stories I have heard of the performances of riflemen, you would think the people were most abominably addicted to lying. A rifle gun will not carry shot, nor will it carry a ball much farther than one hundred yards with certainty."

Spence

 

[Dphar]

Thought this topic might generate some general discussin and learnin. I'll get to more specific questions near the end.

Last few months been re-introducin the wife to shooting. She'd been "informally trained" during our 1st 8 years of marriage as I had more time for shooting then, did PPC, silhouetes (still cant spell them) muzzleloadin huntin and just plinkin. Untold hours at the reloading bench.

Ive been trying to explain caliber designations to her. Why a 38 is "special" why it works in our .357. What 45/70 means as opposed to what 30.06 means, and dont even get me started about the NATO desingations and that whole metric system which we all know was a commie plot :cursing: Yes she actaully saw my boxes of shiney new 7.62x51 and wondered why I called it .308 as you can imagine shes now more confused than ever. We didnt even discuss bore vs groove, .303 which is .312 (as I aint the most articulate teacher may be partly responsible)

So as it pertains to ML, I thought Id seek general information and knowledge from the group on typical calibers, regions, makers periods etc. Knowing that some individuals made the weapon then made the moulds for the balls to fit it, and some converted military arms, and barrels freshed out to the next largest bore etc. I reckon standardizationalism was not on anyones mind 'cept maybe the Army procurement / QM folks.

So where'd we get a .40? I read this was typical of Tennessee Kentucky types, maybe other eastern long rifles, did anyone back there even build or shoot calibers larger than .50? I thought the leather stocking boys all shot 32s or 36s and figgered a .40 was their magnum bear gun or somethin.

Where the heck did a .54 come from? Seems like such a small jump from .50 (yeah I know it weighs more etc but why not .56 ? Was the .58 already around in such numbers as to preclude that?

Id be inerested in learning more about civilian calibers their origins ie. were some of them brand/maker developed and marketed etc like modern smokeless rounds.

Inquirin minds and whatnot.

I think even the Rev War rifles were in the 44-50 caliber range with few exceptions.
Col Hanger, during the American Revolution stated that eh had seem many hundreds of rifle while in America and stated he never saw one over 36 to the pound.
Surviving rifles brought back to England as spoils of war are often under 50 caliber. Since these saw little use after being captured they are more likely to be representative of the calibers of the time.
The 44-50 caliber is perfectly adequate for most uses in Colonial America and used FAR less lead than a 58 caliber would for example. A 495 rb weights 180 grains, a 58 Rb weighs 280 grains 24 to the pound vs 40 to the pound. It also requires more powder as well.

Dan

 

[zimmerstutzen]

By the time of the Rev war, the rifle smiths here had gotten away from the large bore Jaeger style rifles, due in part to the heavy tax on lead imposed by England. Many of the Colonial Riflesmiths from before the F&I war were still making the large bore Jaeger styles that they learned in Central Europe. There may well have been a difference depending on the intended travels of the purchaser. If we look at the originals from the pre 1760 era, they are probably mostly large bores. After 1760 the lengths grew and the bores shrank. My only original from the early 1800's, is about a 42 caliber. I don't have anything from the 1700's in America to compare. In addition, the Golden Age guns that survived, were probably intended partially as show pieces. Who would have all that fancy brass on a knock about frontier gun. Maybe someone has access to the records of an early gunsmith to see what guns were made/requested during the years. Also rememmber that thhere was 100 years of firearms use in the Eastern US before the Revolutionary war. I don't think a 1730's gun would be near what a 1780's gun would be.

 

[kelleyjk]

yeah good points all I shouldve specified rifles rather than muzzleloaders in general, the coversation with the wife got me to thinkin why some plains type rifles mic'd out at .53, some at .54, guess each shop had its on tooling and set up, must have made for interesting times maybe some makers liked it that way a distinction of sorts

DGW used to have some reprints from older articles about just this sort of stuff, Sam Fadala once wrote (1980s) the .54 was "the" most efficient ML rifle caliber, I dont get that if we're talking about round lead balls, not much difference in ballistic coefficient of one sized sphere to the next is there

some of the history of claibers may be obscure but interesting, other than records by some journalist that tell us between xx and zz many balls to the pound considered, nobody wrote this stuff down on spec sheets back then

 

[Zonie]

IMO, when speaking of a rifled guns used by civilians, the bore sizes commonly used in a region had much to do with the game that was prevalent in the area at the time as well as powder efficiencies.
The early Eastern areas for instance had a number of bears and buffalo and these animals required fairly large bores to be put down effectively.
.50-.65 calibers were common.

As time passed many of these larger animals were hunted out leaving the smaller deer which could be taken with .45-.50 caliber guns.

Meanwhile, as time went by folks started moving inland and the larger bore remained popular with them while folks in the Eastern seaboard areas were switching to .36-.45 caliber guns.

As folks started moving into the plains areas where buffalo and grizzly bears were common the larger .54 caliber guns were popular with them while the folks East of the Mississippi started shifting their preferred calibers down to the .36-.45 sizes.

By the time the buffalo were hunted out the cartridge guns were common with the .45 caliber being very popular in the Western areas.

 

[kelleyjk]

an interesting sort of evolution

 

[pmwest]

I highly recommend "American Rifle: a Biography" by Alexander Rose. I found it to be a little heavy on the military side but gives a very well researched history of the rifle. It has a lot of “hows and whys” about rifle design and ammunition that became standards for the American military and the shooting public. One of the values of this book is the references given. If you find a topic or discussion and want to dig deeper, you know where the info came from and where to look further.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Another point. When the early bore sizes were set it was based on the number of balls to the pound. Who had the ability to measure decimal bore diameters?

We begin to see some common numbers when you think that way (here are some approximates)

12 balls to the pound = 0.729"
20 = 0.615"
25 = 0.575"
30 = 0.535"
36 = 0.506"
50 = 0.450"
60 = 0.427"
75 = 0.396"
100 = 0.360"

So the .40 would have been a "75".

There is a famous reference to a "Hawken 30" that was catching flack for the author. But, 30 to the pound is 0.535" - bang on for a .54 rifle.

Old molds are marked that way, also. A mold marked "151" throws a .313" ball - perfect for a .32 cal squirrel rifle. I mention that one because I have seen a mold so marked at a local museum.

 

[nkbj]

Yeah, the only reason we speak in terms of specific calibers is due to mass production. Things were once a bit less standardized.

 

[Coot]

In the 'general information' section in the back of the Dixie Gun Works catalog, they make the interesting observation that if you look at several popular calibers, ie: .69, .58, .44, & .36, that each smaller size is very close to 1/2 the weight of the next larger. And yes, I have seen molds marked (and at least one barrel) with a number that corresponds to balls to the pound.

 

[buford87]

Why do elk and bison west of the mississippi need larger calibers to kill than elk and bison east of the mississippi? :idunno: :idunno:

 

[saber]

elkand buff east or west all die the same if the ball is in the right spot guns from across the ocean were lager cals and came over with the owners the cal stayed big do to bear and man hunting then as hunters traveled further a field hunting and market hunting for the armys and people centers cals dropd also a lot of the big game had been pushed away and the Indian troubles were not a concern you did not need a big cal rifle

 

[kelleyjk]

Ok that makes sense Im reading Crow Killer now they refer to "30 caliber" I reckon theyre meaning 30 balls to the lb. or a 30 bore as it were

 

[Stumpkiller]

That's the one! Great read. Then see if you can find a copy of The Mountain Man by Vardis Fisher.