fowler barrel length 18th C

[George]

 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

 

[matt denison]

Haleluiah. Finally, someone making sense.

Now come the arguements.

Thanks Spence, very interesting - and controversial on this site.

Matt

 

[Steve Tobler]

Thanks Spence, now I don't have to feel inadequate with my 36" F-d-C !!!
:wink:

 

[Le Grand]

No arguements here!

 

[tg]

Yeah I don't see much to argue about, the longer is better theory was a hard fact untill sometime in the past and Spence may have narrowed that time down some, the same applied to naval cannon untill it was decidced that there was a limit on how much longer did any good,i saw one source trhat put this at 8' there is always the issue of choosing a barrel length for a "replica" as many opt for a much shorter barrel than was the norm or even what can be documented often out of fear that a longer barrel will be a unyielding gun in brush, this is a matter of choice but many do not find 44-48" barrels to be an issue with ball or shot for a wide variety of uses/conditions when hunting.

 

[Many Klatch]

Well, if you are shooting a smoothbore with roundball instead of shot, the longer barrel makes it easier to sight down the barrel especially if you don't have a rear sight. The only other advantage a long barrel has is that the extra weight makes it harder to stop your swing when shooting skeet. :grin:

Many Klatch

 

[George]

Yeah I don't see much to argue about...

Well, I'm sorry I posted it, then. What good is a topic we can't fight about? Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. :haha: :haha:

I'll give the next one more thought.

Spence

 

[smoothy]

Hold your horses there. I'll debate that the longer barrels are better. Not with ballistics, but with aesthetics and pointability. I think a fowler with a longer barrel is more graceful looking. My 20 gauge fowler with a 41-1/2" barrel looks too stubby to me. I'm thinking 46" to 50" barrel would be better yet. And I agree with one of the earlier replies that aiming a longer barrel with no rear sight would be better than a short barrel with no rear sight. Snap shooting a shorter barrel may be better. But swinging a longer barrel I believe will tame things down a bit and give better follow through.
(And it's easier to do that lazy lean on a long firearm, too. What was the word for "cool" back in the day, anyway?)

 

[George]

(And it's easier to do that lazy lean on a long firearm, too. What was the word for "cool" back in the day, anyway?)

You mean like this? :haha:

Spence

 

[smoothy]

Exactly!!!!

 

[Curt LaManna]

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!

 

[matt denison]

".... that every one may please himself in the length of his barrel, "

If they could do that back then, then why can't we do that now? You only need please yourself whether for looks or historical accuracy or ease of handling. The arguement that you NEED a long barrel to compete or hunt efficiently is and has been proven to be bunk.

 

[Steve Tobler]

:thumbsup:

 

[Rifleman1776]

In museums there are often some rifles with, what appear to me, to be ungainly long barrels. And many are quite heavy with very small bores. I have handled some of these and it always puzzles me why they are that way. One reason sometimes stated is the extra iron was there to retain strength as the bore was 'freshed' periodically and the bore was enlarged. Dunno 'bout that. They were still quite heavy. And, adding to the puzzlement for me, is people 'back then' were smaller than we are today. Why, really why did they make such heavy rifles and how did they hold them up? Methinks, no I can't document, just an opinion, they used a rest or brace like a tree for shooting. Folks still do. Much easier to hit a squirrel at 50 yards braced against a tree trunk than wobbling around offhand.

 

[Le Grand]

:thumbsup: Right on!!

 

[hanshi]

:thumbsup: to you, Bob. I found the site years ago and printed out some of it to go into my general shooting reference ring binder.

Long barrels do look nice, no question. Anything longer than 42" simply won't go into my truck and even a 42 " is difficult. I settled on 38" as my standard as such guns are easy to transport, don't fatigue me greatly and handle like a dream. If I owned a 44" plus gun I'd never get to shoot it.

 

[RUSELLLEEDORAN]

I recently read this in "King's Mountain and It's Heroes" by Lyman Draper, that when the men from SW Virginia met up with the Overmountain Men at Sycamore Flats September 25, 1780, the group rejoiced that Campbell's men numbered about 200. They were "mostly armed with the Deckard [Dickert] rifle, in the use of which they were expert alike against Indians and beasts of the forest." In the footnote he adds, "It was for that period, a gun of remarkable precision for a long shot, spiral grooved, with a barrel some thirty inches long, and with it's stock some three and a half or four feet, carrying bullets varying from thirty to seventy to the pound of lead. [That's from .40 to .54 to save you a trip to the charts.] The owner of a Deckard rifle at that day rejoiced in its possession."

So looks like short barrels had quite a following among some, the Dickert being, as I undestand it, patterned after the Jaegers of Germanic design. They evidently weren't persuaded in the necessity of having long barrels in Germany or in the Colonies.

I know of several who much prefer the shorter barrels, both in rifles and smoothies for much of the hunting we do in the woods and hills of Arkansas.

Fuzzy

 

[tg]

" 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.

 

[Le Grand]

"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."

Would you please explain that? Which gun types and why?

 

[tg]

If you were reproducing a 1730 French FDC or many other French contracted guns from the Tulle or other armouiries in various times in the 18th century, from a contrdact that called for barrels of 44" then that would be the only correct barrel length, and the same for any English NW or other trade guns from a particular order from a factor on record at a place and time allso Besses or charvilles from a specific time and contract, a Baker rifle,there were many guns made to specific patterns which included barrel length with these one cannot choose any length desired and manintain historical accuracy, or if copying a particular rifle or gun made by a particular builder, if following a builders general work style and theme it is a different matter.

"; and therefore, that every one may please himself in the length of his barrel, without either detriment or advantage to the range"

This idea is fine if one is making or having a genberic or general type of gun fom the past made, and I would question the authenticity issue if one deviated a great deal from the norm of the time or the particular builders work, like a I. Haines rifle with a 39" barrel or a 70" barrel, one should stay in the historical ball park at least and avoid having to make up a story to explain something that is quite out of place, we are stuck with some things like steel barrels and steel instead of iron furniture and many things that do not effect the looks or function when compared to the originals, but we can stay very close on many items and the historiccal integrity is stronger the more we do.