did you know antique guns did not have a standard calaber system?

[Larry Pletcher]

. . .They didn't just hammer the barrel around a mandrel and call it quits. The boring operation took place after the forging, and that is what determined the final caliber. . . . .
Spence

Bob,
I agree. Using increasing larger drills, they would have wanted a drill to cut from one end of the barrel before starting the reaming process. Wallace G. mentions also using a longer bit as they finished because a long bit will not follow a bend while a shorter one might. I'd guess that the amount of drilling depended on how uniform the welding went. (Glad to see you posting here.)
Regards,
Pletch

 

[Rifleman1776]

That might be an interesting read, I dunno. I read through a great deal of it and the main subject was dogs. Nothing about fowlers, barrels, etc. Where did you intend to post this?

 

[Stumpkiller]

Well it's good to see some things don't change. That's just the way our threads here go. Flintlock rifles -> dogs -> motorcycles -> politics. :rotf:

 

[George]

That might be an interesting read, I dunno. I read through a great deal of it and the main subject was dogs. Nothing about fowlers, barrels, etc. Where did you intend to post this?

Did you read chapters 1 and 2, as I suggested? The last part of the book is about training dogs, the game species, shooting, etc, but the first is about forging and boring barrels, deciding on shot, wads, powder, etc., a lot of very interesting stuff pertinent to this discussion.

Spence

 

[Trench]

Spence, thank you for posting this!

 

[lonehorseman]

I happen to think old guns and old dogs go together nicely. I will probably read both, since I am no better at training my dogs than I am at training my rifle to do what I want.

 

[tg]

Therre was a time thta the bore size was considerably larger thna the size of the "ball per lb" it was called later the bore was the same size as the "ball per lb' it was called and probably these methods of description overlapped for a while and the 'gauge' system pronbably came to be in the ist or 2nd quarter of the 19th century today we rarely use the correct nomenclatute for the replica guns we carry and shoot but use the modern terminology instead, like the very common 24 gauge 18th century NW gun, or 20 gauge 1740 French fusil, these terms would have been unknownd in the times contemporary to the original guns

 

[Rifleman1776]

That might be an interesting read, I dunno. I read through a great deal of it and the main subject was dogs. Nothing about fowlers, barrels, etc. Where did you intend to post this?

Did you read chapters 1 and 2, as I suggested? The last part of the book is about training dogs, the game species, shooting, etc, but the first is about forging and boring barrels, deciding on shot, wads, powder, etc., a lot of very interesting stuff pertinent to this discussion.

Spence

First chapter up was XVI (16).
I'm not wasting any more time looking for your reference.

 

[Deadeye]

1776, I found it hard to find too on the 1st try but the barrel work was there in detail and was very interesting.
Thanks Spence,
Deadeye

 

[George]

First chapter up was XVI (16).
I'm not wasting any more time looking for your reference.

I'm sorry the link works that way, not my doing, not my decision. If it's too much trouble for you to scroll back to the first chapter, then you'll just have to do without the amazing information I was trying to provide you with.

You can save yourself a lot more time by just ignoring my posts, they frequently have links like that in them.

Spence

 

[pargent]

Davier le C adet in 1720 started making standardised locks for Saint Etienne .

 

[tg]

"My theory is that first, the mandrel around which the barrel was forged and pounded had to be made. Whoever made it ended up with that arbitrary size."

Interesting "theory" but we have period referencres as to what bore size is acceptable for a particular Ball per lb caliber as early as the first quarter of the 18th century or there abouts achieved by the methods I explained earlier and confirmed by sir Micheal I believe, this information is out there if one takes the time to look for it rather than developing their own theories based on...... :hmm: I really don't know what to say to describre this approach.

 

[jerrywh]

This is only true for guns mostly made on the American fronteer or in the colonies. Harpers Ferry Rifles were standard caliber and many guns made in Europe and England were also.

 

[BobKrohn]

I tried to start a thread maybe a year ago re: this "chicken or egg" issue.
What came first? The barrel diameter or the ball diameter.
The common wisdom was that you got a gun and the gun maker made a mold to match the resulting bore.
This makes no logical sense.
Balls were consumables. They were made in bulk for trade like flints, knives, etc.
There would be any number of advantages to having them in some set of "common sizes".
"measuring" by balls per pound would be the only convenient way to do it in mass trade.
(other than physically matching a ball to your particular bore)
(not to mention using the balls themselves as trade weights)
There were no micrometers in those days. Only "gauges" (i.e. tools, piece of metal with a hole in it).
Hence the de facto name for bore diameter.

I'm no gunsmith, but it's intuitively obvious that it would be much easier to
slowly bore and rifle a barrel to a specific diameter than to
make a perfectly round forming/grinding cherry for a mold of a specific odd size.
Standard ball, then have bore size made tight or loose depending on patch thickness and preference.
Fitting/sizing metal objects was done with machinist gauges or "feel". Again, because that's all they had.
Also, common bore diameter vernacular in that ere was to use ounce weight as in "half-ounce-ball".
I've seen this in old print many times.
Guess what a "half-ounce-ball" is? 32 guage or 0.526"
That's possibly why when Uberti made an exact replica of an original Hawken (Santa Fe model) it came with a
53 cal bore even though it was stamped 54 cal.
They had accidentally followed measured dimensions on the original.
Why does 58 cal pop up? Oh, it's 24 gauge or 2/3 oz or 0.579"

(please remember, few knew anything about "thousanths" then)

gauge oz. grains dia
24 2/3 291.7 0.579
32 1/2 218.8 0.526
48 1/3 145.8 0.460


Now get this. Even when you look at pistol bore sizes used then

50 140.0 0.453
100 70.0 0.360


AND here is a wierd one.
Stanadard Golf Ball is 1.67"
which is.... Ta Da....

One Gauge!

Does anyone know if this is just a coincidence??? Doubt it.


http://www.lasc.us/Brennan_GaugeWeight.htm

 

[jerrywh]

Are you trying to tell us that Brown bess muskets never had standard bores. How about Ferguson rifles? Armies had to have standard size bores.
Lewis and clarks were mostly standard sized with a few exceptions. American longrifles were not standardized but many others were. If there were no accurate methods of measurement, How did the British build chronometers and very fine watches?

 

[longcruise]

Are you trying to tell us that Brown bess muskets never had standard bores. How about Ferguson rifles? Armies had to have standard size bores.
Lewis and clarks were mostly standard sized with a few exceptions. American longrifles were not standardized but many others were.

I think your are correct. Each American gunmaker may have had their own "standardization" just by virtue of the barrel making equipment they possessed such as mandrels, etc. If a rifle maker commonly made his barrels in four or five different bores then there would have been no need to meticulously make a custom mold for each rifle. Just one of several mold sizes that would fit the bore of his several barrel sizes.

 

[Stumpkiller]

The British kept "patterns" in the Tower Arsenal and firearms were gauged against them. They might have allowed a wide tolerance, but they certainly had a minimum and maximum bore size that was allowable.

It is frequently mentioned that barrels were formed over a mandrel - which is true. But then they were drilled and lapped smooth inside; and the rifles rifled. The lapping would take them to the final bore diameter - which could be tightly controlled with simple "go/no go" gauges to match the cherries used to form the moulds for casting balls.

 

[Coot]

The British kept "patterns" in the Tower Arsenal and firearms were gauged against them. They might have allowed a wide tolerance, but they certainly had a minimum and maximum bore size that was allowable.

It is frequently mentioned that barrels were formed over a mandrel - which is true. But then they were drilled and lapped smooth inside; and the rifles rifled. The lapping would take them to the final bore diameter - which could be tightly controlled with simple "go/no go" gauges to match the cherries used to form the moulds for casting balls.

:thumbsup:

 

[jerrywh]

Vernier Calipers were introduced in 1631 by Pierre Vernier, a French mathematician,scientist and engineer. In 1631, Pierre Vernier published a publication called La Construction, l’usage, et les propriétés du quadrant nouveau de math-matiques. In this book, Pierre Vernier described his invention, the Vernier caliper with 2 graduated scales.
http://science-experiments.info/2006/05/vernier-calipers/

 

[tg]

I think this thread has wanders all over the place and lost any prespective. One needs to distinguish between rifles and smoothbores and time periods, as trying to equate a gauge with a caliber or bore size in the rev war period is meaningless as the tern gauge meant nothing then, and during much of the 18th century a bore of .577-.623 would be an acceptable range for a gun of a particular dsignation also at a time the bore size was considerably larger than the ball per lb it was designated as and later the bore was the size of the ball it was designated as, likely with an overlap along the way and the where and when are really important to have any real meaning to any information on this topic. There is a great tendency to fall back on current conceptions of caliber and bore size relationships for 18th and early 18th century guns and they just do not go together. We may need to take a deep breath and start over again with more detailed periods and places as topic fodder, everything from 1700 smoothbores to 1830 rilfes are being dumped into the same basket IMHO