fowler barrel length 18th C

[Skychief]

After reading this post, I realized that the author, is none other than, a man that has become one of my Heroes and an Internet Mentor, Bob Spencer!
I didn't know he was a frequent poster, here on this site. I'm just happy to know, he'll be sharing his wisdom, humor and candor with all of us here.
To those that don't know, who "Spence" is, he's the author of "Bob's Black Powder Notebook". I picked up his webpage, after returning to Black Powder shooting, collecting, and use, after an absence of 25 yrs. I found his site, while looking for new information on the subject.
If you haven't read the info on his site, I can tell you that I enjoy reading it so much, that I keep it bookmarked on my iPhone, and find it good reading, while I have time, doing nothing. His insight and connection with the community of BP shooters and Nature is a wonderful. It's well worth the time and knowledge that you'll gain, from Mr. Spencer's more than 3 decades of living the Black Powder shooters life.
My hat is off to you, Bob! :hatsoff:
Thank you for your shared knowledge and for being one of our "Tribal Elders"!
Howdy, from the Desert of South-Central AridZona!

Well said AZ. Thanks for being here Spence! :hatsoff:

 

[smoothy]

I agree that we need only to "please yourself". But if we all agreed on what a gun "should" look like then we don't need a forum for discussion or debate. My vote goes for a longer barrel only because in my mind's eye that is what a fowler should look like. Not disagreeing that a longer barrel isn't better or that a shorter barrel would be pc or not. In my narrow research its just appears to me that the norm was usually longer until the English "sporting" guns came along. I have a preference for early Americana. And I can't explain the preference for long heavy barrelled guns in the past. Maybe it was "mine is bigger than yours"? Maybe there was some myth about it? Maybe somebody else has a better idea. :idunno:

 

[Joel/Calgary]

Does Cleator, or Maroles before him, have anything to say about pattern density and barrel length? That which was quoted says nothing directly, and there are some on this forum who have had experience with longer barrels shooting tighter, if not harder.

Regards,
Joel

 

[George]

Cleator discusses many things which are said to improve "close" patterns and distance of shooting, things involving the internal shape of the bore as well as the length of barrel, caliber, ratio of caliber to length and other structural characteristics of the guns. In the end, though, he says most all fowlers will shoot about the same if the shooter will spend the time to find the best combination of amount and granulation of powder, amount and size of shot and a good wadding system. He flatly states that each gun has a best combination of those things to bring out its optimum performance and that finding it is the one best thing that can be done to make a good shooting fowler.

BTW, he says that his personal preference in fowler barrels is from 32" to 38".

Spence

 

[shortbow]

Well now, this is certainly an interesting thread, and thanks Spence for finding that original documentation.

First, I guess I better fess up and reveal that after fighting with the (for me) ungainly length and handling characteristics of my J Brown fowler, it went to the barrel trimming dept. yesterday and came back ten inches shorter. It went from a decent gun to a really nice, handy hunting weapon buy dent of that one simple expedient.

As detailed in other posts, I had found it heavy and way out of balance, and with the help of more experienced and knowledgeable shooters had come to the conclusion that there was nothing "fowler" about it. Instead it was a smooth rifle, and an unnecessarily difficult piece at that.

Now that the barrel is 32" instead of 42" it balances much further back, and has the between the hands handling that should be there in any gun which is meant for wingshooting while retaining all of its abilities as a prb gun.

I also have to take issue with the assertions stated above that the sighting ability of the gun is in some way compromised. With a close to three foot sighting radius, I find no handicap at all, and because it is not so dern muzzle heavy, I am able to hold a much more steady bead. Of course, I tend to favor carbines more than long rifles in my old time cartridge arms as well.

Also, perhaps because all my other black powder rifles have been plains types, I find the aesthetics enhanced rather than compromised. Personally, about 36" is the longest rifle of any type that I find attractive. To my eye, any longer looks rather strange and out of proportion.

So aside from ending up with a gun that is much more suitable for my tastes, Spence's initial posts I take as vindication.

Perhaps if I ever got my hands on a fowler that had been built with a barrel of proper proportions I might feel differently, but as long as makers are going to use barrels more suited to rifles, to me shorter is better.

Lastly, at the risk of really annoying some of you guys, when it comes to the PC/HC question, I don't see any reason at all that if I can shorten a barrel to suit myself the old timers couldn't have done the same or had a gun built to a certain set of specifications. Naturally there were norms of social and cultural habits at play in the way guns were built, but just as today, back then I'm sure there were plenty of shooters who packed guns "customized" to personal taste. I think we sometimes become too inflexible and intransigent in our thinking about the way things were done in the past.

Just as in the example of the Dickerts in the time of Long rifles, I'm sure smoothies ran the gamut (within certain broad outlines) in barrel length as well as in many other aspects of design and dimensions.

 

[Mike Brooks]

 In Cleator’s An Essay on Shooting there is a chapter on the range of guns, and he has some things to say I find interesting. Notice the lengths of the barrels under discussion and also their relatively small bore.. This is in England in 1789.

It is not more than fifty years since it was first suggested as a doubt, whether long barrels carried farther than short ones. Formerly every sportsman was provided with pieces of different lengths: the shortest was from 30 to 34 inches in the barrel, and was employed for shooting in cover, where a long piece would be inconvenient; whilst that for open country was from 42 to 45 inches in the barrel.

He explains that the current custom favors the longer barrels, but that he disagrees with the reasons given for the supposed advantage of longer barrels. He then sets out on a long, complicated chapter discussing most of the reasons you’ve ever heard of, involving size of bore, ratio of bore size to barrel length, amount of powder and shot, ratio of powder to shot, granulation of powder and size of shot, how much powder will burn in a given length of barrel, etc., etc. He describes trials made by shooting at quires of paper, counting the total number of hits on the paper, but most especially, counting the number of sheets perforated by each shot.

We have, at different times, compared barrels of all the intermediate lengths between 28 and 40 inches, and of nearly the same caliber, that is to say, from 22 to 26; and these trials were made both by firing the piece from the shoulder, and from a firm block, at an equal distance, and with equal weights of the same powder and the same shot.

And the results of the trials and conclusions drawn from them:

From these trials frequently repeated, we found that the shot pierced an equal number of sheets, whether it was fired from a barrel of 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, or 40 inches in length. Nay more, we have compared two barrels of the same caliber, but one of them 33, and the other 66 inches long, by repeatedly firing them in the same manner as the others, at different distances from 45 to 100 paces, and the results have always been the same, i. e. the barrel of 33 inches drove its shot through as many sheets of paper as that of 66 did. The conclusion from all this, is, that the difference of ten inches in the length of the barrel, which seems to be more than is ever insisted upon among sportsmen, produces no sensible difference in the range of the piece; and therefore, that every one may please himself in the length of his barrel, without either detriment or advantage to the range.

Spence

Please explain duck/goose guns with 60"+ barrels built and used in the same time period.

 

[matt denison]

" You only need please yourself whether for looks or historical accuracy"

Well 'dog I think that some guns types would exclude one pleasing themselves with a non typical barrel length for the historical accuracy part as some were only made in certain length to our best knowkedge.

TG, you help to make the point I was trying to make. If reproducing a fowling piece of the late 1700's for a particular persona then using a barrel length of that period would be neccessary to "please yourself". The OP by Spence was with regard to hitting power of a long barrel vs. a short barrel and there was little if any difference. I have shot a variety of smooth bored guns with barrels from 18 inches to 42 and have found when loaded correctly there isn't much if any handicap. HC is a different discussion.

 

[matt denison]

Please explain duck/goose guns with 60"+ barrels built and used in the same time period.

I wish somebody could explain them. I have handled a "punt gun" that was 8 feet, one inch, overall length. It took two people to carry it. It was one inch bore at the muzzle, don't know exactly how much it weighed but would guess around 15 - 20 lb. These guns were used by market hunters and probably meant to be used from a boat. What an ungainly monster. Why in Heck does the barrel need to be so darn long to kill a bunch of ducks? My only guess is that they were loading it with several ounces of shot and it took a while to get that much weight up to velocity. Thus it wasn't for hitting power, it was to accelerate a half million pellets to take a huge amount of ducks with one shot.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Please explain duck/goose guns with 60"+ barrels built and used in the same time period.

It is simple, they believed the longer barrel was necessary to burn the powder completely.
That myth carries over today with modern firearms. There are many shooters/hunters who believe a longer barrel on a shotgun makes it "hit harder". No amount of logic will change their minds.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

When we talk "fowlers" we are using a modern term and must include a plethora of guns designed to take birds. Since there is a gray area of overlap in those guns to include fusils, fusees, trade guns, short coach guns designed for taking game "in the ditch", punts, fusees and fowling pieces converted top double for musket duty and other smoothebored guns it can get complicated.

The two main categories of shoulder fowling pieces would be the sporting/birding/fowling pieces and the longer, heavier, duck/goose/swan guns. The former generally a light and fun and generally had barrels ranging from 37-48 inches and had bores ranging from 28-12 bore on average.These can be compared to our modern "upland" guns.
The waterfowling guns were much stouter guns with longer barrels. The original mindset of their design was to be able to take a heavier load of shot and be able to burn all the powder to shoot it. Their quarry was many times a larger bird at a longer distance. The bores went from 12 on up with lengths up to 7'. The Hudson Valley "fowlers" developed from these and there were also many imports on the rivers south made just as long.

With either, the barrels handle well for their size. They have larger breeches and thin walls that give a good dynamic. I have examined and tore down four English birding pieces recently and all had breeches of around 1 3/8", lengths 37 1/2-41", relieved/coned muzzles. I have also inspected a 5' barreled English duck gun and while heavy on the scales due to big breech, longer barrel, heavier musket type lock and big hardware, it would to this day make a fine swing on passing waterfowl.

The time frame in which the original writings are discussing is during the period when the double is becoming THE thing, ignition designs are improving and powder as well. I believe all these factors worked together to start a fad of shorter barrels but the double's popularity was certainly a huge contributor. There are many accounts as well as pitiful examples of high end singles being half stocked and having their barrels cut back to keep up with Mr. Jones. If you look you will see many Birmingham type export guns with full stocks, long barrels and old type hardware being made on up to the early 1800's getting rid of surplus.

 

[tg]

" I don't see any reason at all that if I can shorten a barrel to suit myself the old timers couldn't have done the same "

this is a common logic often used, but generaly the "rules" that are accepted buy the PC/HC comminity do not accept that speculative nature of this line of thinking, it is the old "they woulda if they coulda" mindset that excludes a true historically validated way of arrivimng at a point.Some may see this as inflexable but most see it as a requiered part of the game to keep ythimngs from spiraling out of control, and no one says that anyone has to have stuff that is documented as being PC/HC yet like the traditonal terminology many aseem to have to use it without following the accepted guidlines.There are lots of sandboxes around so if one cannot stick within the boudries of one there are others in which to play.If one is going to get into reencating it is best t find a level and consort with those on the same level so oneis in an apples and apples environment or the lack of credibility of ones gear may come up from time to time, if we are trying to play on a level differnt than our own.
Laffindog, I knew you were on top of the issue but just wanted to point out how a quote or any written word from the past can be taken out of context and used in an improper manner to justify the PC/HC potential of something, it is a very common thing for one who is new to the historicakl aspect of the sport and the standrds by which it is performed so to speak to find all sorts of "flaws" in the game but simply put it is how it has been played for a long time and will not likely change, some enter and accept it and go on some just go on not wanting to follow the path as perscribed.Some foks will not put in the time to adjust to many of the norms of the past, the tempation to modernize is a strong one, and there can be many "reasons" to use a more modern way of doing things if not really deicated to the basic concept of stepping back in time, it may not be fore everyone to go to the "higher" for lack of a better term levels, and "higher" is not intended to mean "better"

 

[Capt. Jas.]

The circumftance of a duck-gun killing at a greater diftance than a fowling piece, is not owing to its length, but to its- greater weight and thicknefs allowing the charge of powder to be doubled, trebled, or even quadrupled, which cannot be done in a fowling piece though ftrongly reinforced. For a barrel of five or fix feet, fuch as that of a common duck-gun, weighing five or fix pounds, and the whole piece twelve or thirteen pounds ; may be fired with a very large charge, without recoiling fo much as to hurt the fhooter, its weight being fufecient to refift the violent impulfe occafioned by the in- creafe of the powder. But in a fowling piece of three feet barrel, fufeciently ftrong to withftand fuch a charge, and whofe weight altogether does not exceed five or fix pounds, the recoil would be infupportable. Be- fides, they not only double or treble the powder in a duck-gun, but they put in a much greater quantity of fhot than is ever employed in a fowling piece*. * Duck-guns are generally bent a little upwards near the muzzle, which, the gunfmiths fay, makes them throw their fhot farther than if they were per fectly ftraight. To obtain, therefore, from a piece of the ordinary length, the fame effects as from a duck-gun, nothing more, perhaps, is necefsary than to have the barrel fufficiently ftrong to admit of the charge being doubled or trebled as required, and the whole piece heavy enough to render the recoil fupport- able. We may here obferve, however, that an increase of the powder above the charge generally ufed, does not pro duce a proportional increafe of range in the ball or not: thus a double charge of powder will not throw the, ball or fhot to twice the diftance, nor a treble charge to three times the diftance, the fingle charge does. This arifes from the great refiftance given by the air to the motion of the ball or fhot, and which is proved to be fourfold if the velocity be doubled, and ninefold when it is trebled by an increafe of the powder. So great is the change in opinion of late, with regard to the proper length for gun barrels, that many gunfmiths will now tell us, that fhort barrels carry farther than long ones ; and the reafon they give for this, is, the greater friction of the ball or fhot in pafling through a long barrel, by which their velocity is retarded and their force diminifhed. If the barrel be fo long that the additional impulfe which the ball or fhot is continually receiving in its paffage, becomes lefs than the friction between them and the fides of the caliber, then, indeed, the barrel by being fhortened will fhoot with more force : but as the length of barrel required to produce this effect, is vaftly greater than can ever be employed for any purpofe, the objection does not Having now, we hope, thrown every light upon this queftion, that is necef- fary to determine us in our choice of the length, it will, perhaps, be expected, that we give our opinion, what length of barrel is beft calculated for general ufe. The barrels which we ourfelves employ, and which we have found to anfwer beft for every pur- pofe, are from 32 to 38 inches; and whether we confult the appearance of the piece, its lightnefs, or the eafe with which it is managed, we believe that a barrel not exceeding the one, or below the other of thefe numbers, is the moft eligible.

AN ESSAY ON SHOOTING 1789

 

[George]

Please explain duck/goose guns with 60"+ barrels built and used in the same time period.

I can't do that, but Cleator takes a stab at it. He is speaking of shoulder-fired guns, not punt guns, apparently.

The circumstance of a duck-gun killing at a greater distance than a fowling piece is not owing to its length, but to its greater weight and thickness allowing the charge to be doubled, trebled, or even quadrupled; which cannot be done in a fowling piece, though strongly reinforced. For a barrel of five or six feet, such as that of a common duck gun, weighing five or six pounds, and the whole piece twelve or thirteen pounds; may be fired with a very large charge, without recoiling so much as to hurt the shooter, its weight being sufficient to resist the violent impulse occasioned by the increase of the powder. But in a fowling piece of three feet barrel, sufficiently strong to withstand such a charge, and whose weight altogether does not exceed five or six pounds, the recoil would be insupportable. Besides, they not only double or treble the powder in a duck-gun, but they put in a much greater quantity of shot than is ever employed in a fowling piece.

Duck-guns are generally bent a little upward near the muzzle, which, the gunsmiths say, makes them throw their shot farther than if they were perfectly straight.

Spence

 

[matt denison]

TG said:

[b]"... a quote or any written word from the past can be taken out of context and used in an improper manner to justify the PC/HC potential of something, it is a very common thing for one who is new to the historicakl aspect of the sport and the standrds by which it is performed so to speak to find all sorts of "flaws" in the game but simply put it is how it has been played for a long time and will not likely change, some enter and accept it and go on some just go on not wanting to follow the path as perscribed.Some foks will not put in the time to adjust to many of the norms of the past, the tempation to modernize is a strong one, and there can be many "reasons" to use a more modern way of doing things if not really deicated to the basic concept of stepping back in time, it may not be fore everyone to go to the "higher" for lack of a better term levels, and "higher" is not intended to mean "better"..." [/b]

I agree completely. Some of us have decided to play this game and have spent lare amounts of time ! and money !! to conform to the "rules". When in Rome do as the Romans do. If your persona is mid 1700's then shoot a gun that is correct for mid 1700's. I hate the phrase "if they'd a had it.." think :bull: There are exceptions to every rule. Were a few guns chopped down during the period? Certainly. Were short barreled fowling guns available commercially during the period? Not so sure :hmm: Here is where we can become a mentor for the pilgrim striving for PC/HC. We do know that guns of the period were long barreled and that is more or less a "rule" of the game. However, if Joe Public wants to try his hand at turkey hunting with a 30 barrelled XYZ gun then the eidence is here that it will work durn near as well as any other barrel length if it is loaded correctly for that barrel length.

:surrender:

 

[George]

Some of us have decided to play this game and have spent lare amounts of time ! and money !! to conform to the "rules".

I'm afraid there is a strong, sometimes extreme tendency among serious PCHC players to get locked into a certain interpretation of history. We do serious research, good research, build up a picture of the way things were, spend the money and effort on gear to fit our picture and move into our persona. If new information comes along which makes it plain we don't have it quite right, we can be amazingly resistant to change. That's not good, but we all do it, in spades.

The same holds true with so many of the dogmas passed down to the newbies about the guns, the shooting, and how all that works. I see discussions on the various forums all the time of ideas which were being knocked down in writings from 300 years ago. Better information has become available, but it doesn't take. Why is that?

I am frequently reminded of something I read by Leo Tolstoy: "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

Spence

 

[paulvallandigham]

Remember that Games laws didn't exist back then, as we know them today. The long guns were used- from boats- or from shore, to shoot FLOCKS of duck, or geese, sitting on the water- not wing-shooting at passing birds. It was not illegal to shoot at sitting ducks back then, and people who depended on these food sources to live would consider most of us NUTS today, for only shooting at flying birds.

The fact that game laws dictating who and what and when you could hunt didn't exist was a huge draw for people coming to the colonies from Europe, where only nobles could hunt, and all the wild game belonged to the KINGS- not the people.

It should not surprise people that a few of these early 18th century guns still exist, as they made great conversation pieces hanging over the mantel in taverns, and some private homes, after the flocks of geese were diminished to a point where domesticated livestock took over as the primary food source.

Commercial duck hunters were still active right up thru the late 19th century, when the first game laws were being passed to save the wildlife, by banning commercial hunting, and establishing daily bag and possession limits in limited seasons. Part of the reform movement was the banning of shooting birds on the ground, or water, which became thought of as "unsportsman-like," as part of a development of rules concerning "fair chase".

The "rules" are not the same in every state, which is why its important for hunters to learn and follow whatever the rules apply in the given state where they are hunting.

Illinois, for instance, has had a (closed?) season for Doves for more than 50 years, but the dove's cousin, the common pigeon, is considered a pest, and can be hunted 365 days a year. Across the river, in Iowa, that state is only now allowing a limited season on Dove- but I don't know what its laws are concerning the taking of pigeons.

 

[tg]

I eagerly await and accept any vaid new data no matter where it may point me but by the same token I resist the effort to debunk/ignore existing information because of the theory that "they" could have done this or that just because a person does not like where the existing standards lead or might require to be deemed correct according to what we know at the time.There is no point to try and recreate history with out some kind of guidelines to seperate the documented past from fantasy.What amazes me as te number of people who will try to argue so many currently unfounded items or concepts into the relm of "traditional" or "PC/HC" then in the same breath say they they really have no interest in history, If someone is so convinced that X was done or existed in the past then do the research and find an example and share with all, this is what it is all about.

 

[shortbow]

Spence, that last post of yours is very well said and makes the point that I so haltingly was trying for.

Tg, I'm usually on the same page with what you write, but I have to differ here.

Firstly, if you re-read Capt. Jas. there IS period documentation for shorter fowlers. First, the quote about "higher end guns being cut back" and then his citing of that old piece saying that the optimum for a fowler is 32" to 38"

Also, my persona, a fair bit of which is derived from the facts of my ancestors, is that of a fellow of Cherokee and Scots extraction who travels West with a trader on the Santa Fe trail in the mid '20's, sticks around and traps out of Taos for the remainder of the beaver hat period. I admired my grandad's old fowler growing up on the farm and when I took off for St. Louis my Father gave it to me to take along. No other gun was available to me on account of little money around the place and as well it is this gun to which I've been bonded since I was first able to help slop the hogs. Once I got out West, I found the thing too long to be convenient on horseback and having, as well, seen the Indian trade guns, I had the thing shortened by a blacksmith/gunsmith in Santa Fe.

Therefore, within the context of my persona it fits like a glove as far as I'm concerned. Anybody might quibble with this narrative, but there it is. Were I a 1770's Eastern man, I might well not shorten my gun, but who knows.

Also, it must be taken into consideration that notwithstanding that this gun was sold as a "fowler" it is not. It is a smooth rifle. As was amply demonstrated in the above posts, a fowler has a heavy breech tapering to a thin barrel, a design which allows long barrels while retaining proper balance. A lot more could be said about this, but I'll leave it at that.

Lastly, I take exception to the characterization that my rationale for cutting my barrel is based in the "they woulda if they coulda" mentality. That is just plane wrong, because they DID because they COULD. I've seen many shortened guns, especially those owned by NDNs from the muzzle loading period, right up through the late 19th and early 20th century. Shortening barrels to suit an owner's wants is nothing unusual nor exotic, not then, not now.

 

[Le Grand]

:thumbsup: Well said!

 

[smoothy]

From what I can tell, most military smoothbores had relatively long barrels (Brown Bess). Maybe this was more to get a long reach with a bayonet, I'm not sure. Also, early on in my reading on the subject, it appeared that American arms were generally longer to save on powder. A general statement and maybe a myth. Others research may prove otherwise. I'm hanging in there with TG with the school of thought that barrels were "generally longer". Doesn't exclude short barrels, just that they weren't as common.