fowler barrel length 18th C

[tg]

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

I did not see anyplace that I said there were no short barreled or shortened fowlers, I was speaking generaly about the tendency to dissreguard what is known and use what is prefered,(the short barrel thing is often stretched quite a bit with some guns from the 18th century and require a story about being cut back which is fine but the fittngs positions should reflect this), even if not supported by any historical evidence, I suspect that for your time period shorter gun were more common even ones from the factoiry,someone once provided such a period reference for a sub 3" trade gun as I recall but I do not remember the date and this is not the first time I have seen the reference of shortened guns in the 19th century, again the time/place is paramount with this type of thing. I did not catch what traits your gun has that makes it a "smoothrifle" by nature the barrels today will be closer to a smoothrifle than a fowler but is takes more than that and a rear sight in general to be one of these guns, and a gun cut back will have a heavier wall at the muzzle and will likley have an odd positionsing of the ferruls and barrel pins for its length, this is the problem with buying a short gun from the factory and saying it was cut down, the appearance would be quite differnt as mentioned, something many do not consider but it is a detail and that is what the HC/PC game is all about.cut down guns are probably HC/PC acceptable but they really should look "cut down" rather look like they were than made that way, if really going for the historical accuracy look IMHO

and in closeing I was not singleing you out for useing personal preference as a motive but the following suggest a greta deal of this mindset was at work.

" 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"

 

[George]

We all need to keep in mind that this book and the opinions in it are from England, not this country. True, technology is exchanged between countries, especially our country and England, but it is obvious to me that it sometimes occurs at a glacial rate. Cleator has a chapter on rifles in which he describes how they are charged. Apparently, the method most commonly in use at that time in England was still to drive an oversize ball down with a steel ramrod. He mentions that the Germans sometimes use oiled leather or fustian patches and that the patch material fills the rifling. He says the best way currently available is that used in the Ferguson rifle.

Now, this is in 1789, only 5 years after the British were rather forcefully introduced to the technology of the American rifle, yet no mention of that is in the book.

Many years ago I noticed the same disconnect in a book by another Englishman, Isaac, Weld, "Travels Through the States of North America and the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, During the Years of 1795, 1796 and 1797". Even at this late date, Weld describes in detail the American rifles, patches, patchboxes, and explains the spiral rifling and its effect on the ball, accuracy and range as though it is entirely new to him.

This glacial flow of information about gun technology was not a one-way street, I would think. The British were more shotgun than rifle shooters, and the technology and fashions concerning fowlers in use at that time in England might very well have not yet made it across the Atlantic. From what little I know about all this, it seems to me there's no doubt that longer barrels were more common in this country at the time Cleator's book was written, and for quite a long time after.

Before anybody gets their knickers in a knot they should realize that this book may very well not represent the general situation in our country during the 18th century.

Spence

 

[Steve Tobler]

Bob, I just love the way you write and greatly appreciate your contributions.
:thumbsup:

 

[shortbow]

Tg, I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, but for sure I cut my gun down strictly because of personal preference. I figure I might as well have a gun I like and can shoot well, and another of the points I endeavored to make is that just because it is a personal preference does not necessarily mitigate against it's historical authenticity.

As to why I say it is (or was) a smooth rifle, I thought I had addressed that, but to restate: A fowler needs a heavy breech with a rapid taper from there to light walls then flaring at the muzzle, such architecture contributing to balance between the hands which in turn gives the gun a certain dynamic "swingability." This gun has a long octagon section that is parallel, with a nominally swamped section but which retains very thick walls making the gun very muzzle heavy. As made, it had all the characteristics of a rifle save the smooth bore and lack of rear sight.

Anyhow, I hope nobody thinks I'm arguing or looking for a fight. I'm simply chewing the fat in what I hope is a friendly discussion and relating how I aim for as much pc/hc validity as I'm able while still having a gun that works for me. From anything I've read here or elsewhere on the site as well as in other sources, my chopped fowler carried in the first half of the 19th century is quite acceptable.

If there are those who feel that my gun would be MORE pc/hc with it's original length, I guess we'll just have to live and let live. :wink:

 

[tg]

"As made, it had all the characteristics of a rifle save the smooth bore and lack of rear sight'

I guess I missed that, it would typicaly have a bow on the tg and a rear sight(which was paramopunt to being a smoothrifle) and a cheekpiece the barrel profile was only a part of the smoothrifle package, it sounds more like a smoothbore with a funky barrel? and whatever it was it is still the same only shorter, maybe the confusion started witn the 18th century conotation in the heading of the post and then we find ourselves near the end of the first quarter of the 19th century, if the barrel has been cut back without changing the ferruls or barrel pins it might be close to a "cut down" gun most buy a short gun and tell of it being "cut ddown" which is a stretch due to the appearance.

 

[shortbow]

That's interesting about the cheekpiece, as this gun has that as well (at the moment anyway :grin. When I got the gun, it surprised me a bit because as my first "fowler" I didn't expect that, especially since there is almost no cast off. All in all it is a lot like a rifle, but at any rate it now fits me pretty good and I like it a lot more.

One thing is for sure. I need to attend a lot more shoots where knowledgeable fowler owners are, see a lot of smoothies and pick some brains. Unfortunately, mostly up here you either see rifles or trade guns.

Last thought: I wonder if Jackie's term "Carolina Fowler" is meant to indicate a type of gun which differs from the fowler norm?

 

[George]

Last thought: I wonder if Jackie's term "Carolina Fowler" is meant to indicate a type of gun which differs from the fowler norm?

I don't know what descriptive terms are being used for this style of Jackie's guns now, but when they were introduced and for a long time after, he called them "Carolina Smoothbores." I never saw the term fowler applied to them, but it has been a long time since I saw any of his descriptive material, and that could have changed.

Spence

 

[shortbow]

Thanks Spence, that's very interesting. When I bought the gun 'fowler' is the term the seller used and I've also looked around the web and 'carolina fowler' is the term most often encountered although smoothbore is also seen. Sold as a C. Smoothbore, it makes a lot more sense.

 

[tg]

I think he strecthed that stock and general gun into a lot of projects, it is a bit unsettling that the natute of the barrel profile is stll not made known up front after hearing from the horses mouth that it would be in the future, I liked my JB smoothrifle and would probably still have it except for the choice to "upgrade" and that straight barrel section never did feel/look right to me, it was a factor as to keep the gun or not, it shot very well in a .54 smoothrilfe style, I guess that in the end it seems that at times one must ask the questions that one does not think need asked about the details of a makers product.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Spence,

Good stuff there.

About all that we can say is “They were what they were”. We know that many Fowler’s had barrels over four feet. Trade guns were generally 40 plus inches etc. What we do not know is why.

Maybe,
ӢLike todays black rifles, the style was in vogue.
ӢThe powder was not always the best and needed a longer barrel to burn properly.
ӢThe longer barrel was better for use with a bayonet. (military arms)
ӢBetter sighting radius, especially with round ball.
ӢMore graceful lines.

I have heard these and many more reasons. Perhaps they are true, perhaps not.

It is true that some shorter barrel lengths were requested or cut off, but we also know that those selling the guns spent money on longer barrels because that is what the market wanted.

The exact reasons for the longer barrels we can only speculate or try to derive from the comments of the sellers of the time period.

Whatever the reason they do possess and certain charm.

 

[tg]

I think we have period references to the shorter barrels being sufficient to burn the powder which would suggest they thought the longer ones were needed earlier, this was also the theory at one time with cannon, the idea that a longer barrel gave longer range was a belief in the past at some time in history, untill a better understanding was had of ballistics, this is a documented treason why they had longer barrels
(flawed ballitic theory)

 

[George]

..., this was also the theory at one time with cannon,....

The arguments concerning barrel length are many, long and convoluted in the book, but Cleator does mention that longer cannon barrels were considered best at an earlier time, and that the same arguments applied to small arms had been applied to them:

The generally received opinion upon this subject is, that, to obtain an increase in the range, the barrel must not only be made longer than usual, but that the length and the diameter of the bore ought to bear a certain proportion to each other, and the charge of powder be suited to this proportion; because, as it is said, when the barrel is too short, the ball or shot quits it before it has received the whole impulse of the powder; and, on the other hand, when the barrel is too long, that the powder is not only all inflamed, but even partly consumed, before the ball or shot arrives at the mouth of the piece. It was upon this theory that Balthazar Killar, a celebrated cannon founder in the reign of Louis XIV. rested his opinion, when asked by Mons. Suriry de St. Remy, whence it was that the culvern of Nancy, which was 22 feet in length, did not carry a ball as far as a shorter piece was found to do: his answer was---- “The powder when enflamed ought to quit the cavity of the piece in a certain time, in order to exert its whole force upon the bullet; by a longer stay part of the force is lost.”

Spence

 

[tg]

Thanks for that reference, I saw another that put the ideal max length at about 8' for cannon of one bore of which I do not recall, I do not know when this was accepeted though in that source...I really should have kept good notes

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I thought the longer barrel idea might also be popular because the powders available in the new world might not be as potent or as consistent as those in Europe.

In particular the powder that was bound for the Indian trade outposts no doubt saw a lot of rough handling.

Since many of the trade guns were of smaller bore, say 54 to 58 cal. I think it is also safe to say the users were rather frugal.

 

[tg]

Untill some point in the 18th century the powder and the guns would have been made in Europe and sent to te colonies and Canada, so at this early time the "longer barrel" mindset would have likley came with the guns and powder from Europe, so the concept was likely "pre-colonial powder manufacture" in nature??

 

[Mike Brooks]

I thought the longer barrel idea might also be popular because the powders available in the new world might not be as potent or as consistent as those in Europe.

In particular the powder that was bound for the Indian trade outposts no doubt saw a lot of rough handling.

Since many of the trade guns were of smaller bore, say 54 to 58 cal. I think it is also safe to say the users were rather frugal.

Most of the fowling guns were long barreled in europe. In fact most all of the barrels for fowling guns, especially the long barreled waterfowling guns were imported from europe.

 

[Joel/Calgary]

Thanks for that reference, I saw another that put the ideal max length at about 8' for cannon of one bore of which I do not recall, I do not know when this was accepeted though in that source...I really should have kept good notes

I recall reading one of the 18th or 19th century writers stating that he found little increase in muzzle velocity in extending a barrel length beyond 25 calibers. By that rule, an 8' bore length would be optimum for a caliber of 3.84". If windage allowance was 1/16, which I'm not certain about, that would give a shot diameter of 3.6". Does anyone have a table of artillery shot weights & bore diameters?

Regards,
Joel