Birddog6 said:
As for caliber, the caliber of the original Marshall rifle is .58 caliber, as it is now.
:thumbsup:
Assuming someone wants to make a true replica rifle just like when it was is 1770 or what ever.... Really this is not that important 50-54-58 any would be an "accurate representation".
My point is that we have only an approximate idea of what caliber the rifle was when it was first put into service.
It is unlikely it was 58 *if it saw much use*. It might not be now if the bore was carefully checked. Many original rifles are funneled at the muzzle to ease loading. Since I don't know how the bore was measured I must factor this in as well.
Rifles were typically recut/freshed if used very much.
Wear, corrosion etc would reduce accuracy and the grooves would be deepened and the lands also cut down. It could be and was done under field conditions. Shield's freshed Lewis's personal rifle (IIRC) during return trip of the L&C expedition when it lost accuracy.
It was just a fact of life that has to be considered when calibers of original rifles are the topic.
Col. Hanger, who was one of the noted English riflemen of the Rev-War era stated that he had never seen an American rifle larger "than 36 to the pound" and he had examined "many hundreds".
Yes, there were exceptions and yes, the rifle COULD have been a 58 when new, especially given the markings on the barrel, the size of the rifle etc. But its just as likely the bore was 52-54 when new.
Surviving "minty" rifles and written accounts of the time indicate that the idea that "Early rifles were bigger bores" the "common knowledge" back when I was first into MLing, needs to be more carefully thought out.
Dan
