H/C Fast Twist Flintlocks

[galamb]

There is always much debate about what twists were originally used in old originals.

Anyhow, I was reading an article in the April 2013 edition of Muzzle Blasts talking about a John Jacob Sheetz rifle (1785-1860, Shepherdstown, VA - now W.VA) that was owned by a William Ross and used in the Battle of New Orleans making it (firmly) a "Golden Age Flintlock".

So I am making notes of the description of the rifle etc, doing some research for a Virginia build when I come across the barrel description, which was as follows:

It is a 38 caliber flintlock in fine original condition... The 42 inch wrought iron barrel is rifled with a 1 turn in 36 inches twist and is clearly marked on the top flat with J. SHEETZ.

Even by "modern" roundball standards, 1:36 is "fast" for a smaller caliber which is typically 1:48.

So the "myth" that old rifles did not have fast twists is just that, a myth - perhaps they "typically" had slower twists, but at least in this case, a fast twist was certainly not "unheard" of.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I thought that it was firmly established there were some fast twist rifles, and that 1:48 was not a T/C default nor a "good for both round ball and conical" twist, but was actually quite common on rifles of the flintlock era.

I was taught that the slowing of the twist rates in modern barrels was due to the idea that the faster twists had the tendency to cause a patched ball when launched with a large load to "skip" across the rifling, thus limiting the use of large powder charges.

I had also heard that the faster rifling twist rate is a "myth" only in that it's more than simply the twist rate that might cause a patched round ball with a large powder charge to fail to properly engage the rifling in a barrel. Just as it's not necessarily true that a slow twist rate will not stabilize a conical in, for example, a .58 caliber British Enfield rifle.

:idunno:

LD

 

[Rifleman1776]

I thought that it was firmly established there were some fast twist rifles, and that 1:48 was not a T/C default nor a "good for both round ball and conical" twist, but was actually quite common on rifles of the flintlock era.

I believe that is absolutely correct. In museums that fully document their guns, I have seen 1:48" as the overwhelming dominant twist in ml rifles. This is especially true at the J.M. Davis museum http://www.thegunmuseum.com/indexmain.html where they document every gun. And there are thousands. There are few ml rifles on display that are not a 1:48" twist. That is not a 100% fer sure, fer certain documentation but plenty good enuf for me.

 

[BrownBear]

If there's a "default" implied in the 1:48 twist, I think it goes waaaay back before anyone had a conical gleam in their eye.

In my experience it's a "default" that allows great accuracy with both light and heavy charges. In say 50 cal a guy could use a single 40-grain measure for all his shooting situations. A single dump for lighter shooting, a double dump when more range or "power" was needed, and a triple dump if he really wanted to snort things up.

No documented fact in that opinion, but sure some shooting sense with my own 1:48 rifles.

Haven't started on the project yet but my aim is to replace all the powder measures for all my guns to reflect this. If a gun prefers 70 grains for my "deer" load, I'll be outfitting it with a 35 grain measure. If it wants 100 grains (not likely, but I'm being hypothetical), it will get a 50 grain measure.

Ever wonder why so many historic powder measures are "small" by today's standards?

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I'm sorry BrownBear, I wasn't clear... in the 1970's when I was selling firearms and knew NOTHING about the history of BP rifles, I was taught that the 1:48 twist rate wasn't historic, but that it was chosen by T/C as a "default" twist that could acceptably shoot RB's and Conicals...

Of course now I know that was never true... :haha:

I wonder about the "half-measure" theory of the powder charger... I can't see somebody loading a half measure to go small game hunting when there is an Indian threat, or the possibility of getting a deer or a bear or dealing with a wolf or a mountain lion.... until the local area became so civilized that the Indian/Panther/Wolf/bear threat was mighty low.

I think that they simply used smaller charges than we do today, unless there's also the theory that they somehow unloaded quietly, and reloaded with a double charge when going for squirrel and finding a deer coming their way. :shocked2:

LD

 

[Rifleman1776]

Ever wonder why so many historic powder measures are "small" by today's standards?

Not really.
The use of half and double measures is often mentioned in readings of 'back in the day'.
(and, don't bring up that 2X a "half" is not a double measure. :shake: )

 

[Patocazador]

"Of course now I know that was never true... "

Next you're going to tell me that Robert Redford didn't really shoot a T/C Hawken. :nono:

 

[54ball]

I think twist simply had to do with what rifling bench the smith had in his shop. I think there is something to the old, 1 turn per the length of barrel.

Now there were rifles with barrels longer than 48" but most fall between 36"-48" with 42 to 46" being quite common. If a smith had only one rifler, it makes since that it would be one turn in 48" to accommodate most barrels.

Also rifling depth has as much or more to do with shootability as twist.

If one is after a truly historical piece, you have to consider what may be late 19th to 20th Century target shooting contamination in muzzleloading lore. This can include, priming powder, twist rates, ect ect.

 

[galamb]

I just found this really interesting.

Unfortunately, most descriptions of a rifle do not include the twist or rifling depth - something that many of us would be interested in.

I have found numerous references to 1:48 twist as a somewhat "standard" twist "back when" and even "back when" a "slow twist" (greater than 1:60) was often noted as being a slow twist in the few references I have found.

But this is the first reference that I can remember of a Golden Age rifle with a twist significantly faster than 1:48. Yes, the Brits and Germans had some fast stuff that is documented, but not alot from this side of the big pond and in particular, not one that was made in the Shenandoah region.

(So of course I just "have to build one" - Charlie Burton can make the barrel so have no excuse :rotf: )

 

[nkbj]

Well, it's all relative. A 48" twist in a .577 is the long range accurate twist. In smaller bores the effect is less, progressively.
Wouldn't it be interesting to find out what that fella with the 36" twist thought about his .38 rifle?

 

[galamb]

Hmmm - he felt confident enough to take it into battle - trusted his life with it.

And it is "still in the family", so liked it enough to keep it and pass it down.

So a couple of "positive" votes.

 

[Dphar]

There is always much debate about what twists were originally used in old originals.

Anyhow, I was reading an article in the April 2013 edition of Muzzle Blasts talking about a John Jacob Sheetz rifle (1785-1860, Shepherdstown, VA - now W.VA) that was owned by a William Ross and used in the Battle of New Orleans making it (firmly) a "Golden Age Flintlock".

So I am making notes of the description of the rifle etc, doing some research for a Virginia build when I come across the barrel description, which was as follows:

It is a 38 caliber flintlock in fine original condition... The 42 inch wrought iron barrel is rifled with a 1 turn in 36 inches twist and is clearly marked on the top flat with J. SHEETZ.

Even by "modern" roundball standards, 1:36 is "fast" for a smaller caliber which is typically 1:48.

So the "myth" that old rifles did not have fast twists is just that, a myth - perhaps they "typically" had slower twists, but at least in this case, a fast twist was certainly not "unheard" of.

Knowing who wrote the article and who checked the twist would be enlightening.
Fast twists.
We have to remember that in Europe that 1 turn in the barrel length was a common rule. Even of the barrel was a 65 caliber and was 25" long.
The English fell onto the idea that they needed to increase the twist as the bore increased even though it had been proven to be false buy Baker and others. They clung to this till the end of the ML era though not all makers subscribed to it Forsythe knew it to be more common than not. The rifling form combined with the fast twist resulted in rifles of 58 to 72 that would not shoot more than 50-70 gr of powder without stripping.
36" in a 38 is not especially fast considering that a 48" in a 54-58 will tolerate 1/2 ball weight of powder if loaded right.
WHO rifled it and WHEN is another question.
If this rifle was originally a 32-36 and was later bored and re-rifled to 38 it could have been done with a faster twist since by the 1830s picket bullets were "in" for target work in the east and twists in the 3 ft range would work well with a picket of this caliber. It might even have a gain from this distance.


Dan

 

[galamb]

This was the circumstances that led to the article which contained the information.

-------------------

As a way to commemorate the bi-centennial of the War of 1812, the Contemporary Longrifle Association (CLA) has commissioned Darrin McDonal and Jim Parker to build a documentary copy of the Sheetz rifle. It will be auctioned off during the CLA's annual convention in Lexington, Kentucky on Saturday, August 17, 2013.

NMLRA member Darrin McDonal, from Channahon, Illinois is a seasoned builder of contemporary muzzleloading firearms with 28 gun projects under his belt.

A member of the CLA since 2006, he prefers 1750-1780s flintlock long guns and pistols, but has also built Plains rifles. Darrin did all the rough stocking and inletting on the Sheetz rifle, except the patchbox and trigger guard.

In addition, he made and installed the hardware i.e. ramrod pipes, side plate muzzle cap and did half of the wood carving. Darrin also forged the trigger, trigger plate and frizzen spring.

Although he has made bench copies of original guns, this is the first documentary project he has taken on. "I knew this project would be challenging", said Darrin, "but from my first look at the original rifle, I knew we had to do our best to recreate 'that' rifle. Not a bench copy.

This is my tribute to those two men, Mr. Sheetz and Mr. Ross and what they did for us."

----------------------
The photo's accompanying the build show the original side by side on the bench through all aspects of the build.

I assume they measured correctly.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Now there were rifles with barrels longer than 48" but most fall between 36"-48" with 42 to 46" being quite common. If a smith had only one rifler, it makes since that it would be one turn in 48" to accommodate most barrels.

Can't agree with the approach to that conclusion. Even though those guys lived 'back then' they were not stupid. Rate of twists were test, experimented with, cussed and discussed for a long time in many places. Methinks the 1:48" was used a lot because it works. That simple.

 

[azmntman]

Agree...after all "way back when" most folks could still think :shocked2: