That is an innacurate broad brush assumption. I have a great article from a 1971 American Rifleman magazine I can send you, or anyone who is interested in Jaegers. It busts several Jaeger myths.
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Jaeger vs Longrifle
- Thread starter Rokon
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
That is an innacurate broad brush assumption. I have a great article from a 1971 American Rifleman magazine I can send you, or anyone who is interested in Jaegers. It busts several Jaeger myths.
There are clearly some aesthetic differences between a longrifle and a jaeger. There are also handling differences as well as shooting differences.
In the end, it seems obvious that most people had longrifles here because most people wanted longrifles probably primarily out of tradition and style, same thing that led to rapiers with over three-foot blades having to be banned from Elizabethan Court.
In the end, it seems obvious that most people had longrifles here because most people wanted longrifles probably primarily out of tradition and style, same thing that led to rapiers with over three-foot blades having to be banned from Elizabethan Court.
Stophel
75 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Messages
- 5,963
- Reaction score
- 869
I think Native Arizonan has hit it at least partially right. German rifles were probably at least as often as not used as target rifles, not necessarily hunting. An offhand target rifle needs to balance just ahead of the lock. A four foot barrel generally isn't going to give you that. And they are usually not "extremely heavy". In fact, I find that most later American rifles tend to be much heavier. Some American rifles that look so slim and light and graceful weigh a TON.
The very shortest barreled rifles (deemed "Stützen") were supposedly used for hunting in heavy cover... usually wild boar, as I understand it.
There ARE long barreled German rifles (and by the way, a Jaeger is a hunter, not the gun he carries). Most of them are heavy barreled bench rest rifles, often with heel rests in the butt. Just like with bench rest rifles today, they weren't really packed around much.
There are some longer barreled hunting rifles. Not many. They tend to be smaller caliber for shooting birds or other small game.
Now, I have seen only TWO 18th century rifles that were purported to be Swiss. I have found it surprisingly difficult to come across known Swiss rifles. As I recall one had a 41" barrel, and the other 43" or something like that. Two guns don't exactly make a trend, but, if this holds with other Swiss rifles, it could well be that this long rifle barrel trait came to America this way. Many of the earliest PA German settlers were from Switzerland, though by the middle of the 18th century they were outnumbered by other Germans. Some of our gunsmiths were from Switzerland, so....
Just a hypothesis.
As for the use of longer rifle barrels, I would tend to think it was mostly for economy of powder, which should make it easier to create a sufficiently powerful load with less powder. Plus, other guns had long barrels too... German smoothbore guns are just as long as anyone else's. :wink:
The very shortest barreled rifles (deemed "Stützen") were supposedly used for hunting in heavy cover... usually wild boar, as I understand it.
There ARE long barreled German rifles (and by the way, a Jaeger is a hunter, not the gun he carries). Most of them are heavy barreled bench rest rifles, often with heel rests in the butt. Just like with bench rest rifles today, they weren't really packed around much.
There are some longer barreled hunting rifles. Not many. They tend to be smaller caliber for shooting birds or other small game.
Now, I have seen only TWO 18th century rifles that were purported to be Swiss. I have found it surprisingly difficult to come across known Swiss rifles. As I recall one had a 41" barrel, and the other 43" or something like that. Two guns don't exactly make a trend, but, if this holds with other Swiss rifles, it could well be that this long rifle barrel trait came to America this way. Many of the earliest PA German settlers were from Switzerland, though by the middle of the 18th century they were outnumbered by other Germans. Some of our gunsmiths were from Switzerland, so....
Just a hypothesis.
As for the use of longer rifle barrels, I would tend to think it was mostly for economy of powder, which should make it easier to create a sufficiently powerful load with less powder. Plus, other guns had long barrels too... German smoothbore guns are just as long as anyone else's. :wink:
Historical meanderings aside, this topic is about "modern" made jägers VS longrifles and the advantages from a personal standpoint of each type of MLer. I've never built a jäger and really never cared to because of the grace and beauty of longrifles....but as it's said...."beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and if some can equate the beauty of a jäger w/ that of a longrifle, so be it.
I'm not going to "compare" a jäger w/ a longrifle....as far as shooting, hunting and aesthetics. Why? Because personal preferences really can't be negatively assessed...."true facts" aren't pertinent when personal choices are involved and in the end, opinions aren't changed one iota.
But I do question the motive of the OP....seeing it's quite obvious....Fred
I'm not going to "compare" a jäger w/ a longrifle....as far as shooting, hunting and aesthetics. Why? Because personal preferences really can't be negatively assessed...."true facts" aren't pertinent when personal choices are involved and in the end, opinions aren't changed one iota.
But I do question the motive of the OP....seeing it's quite obvious....Fred
Stoph...I acknowledge you know a thing or three about Jaeger rifles. But, your opinions can be at variance with other folks. e.g. a rifle can properly be called a "Jaeger" if it is commonly viewed as a hunting rifle. Likewise, a baseball player doesn't have red feathers just because he is called a "Cardinal". Hunting in Germany is almost always from a tree stand. Their hunting season is a sort of 'anything is legal'. What wanders into their sights, hog, deer, whatever can be shot. That is why drillings have some popularity.
Many Jaegers (the rifles, not the men :wink: ) I have seen in museums are heavily carved and engraved with hunting scenes. Hunting was a big use, no different than us today with our muzzle guns.
In the end it's all economics 101. Gunsmiths made long guns because that's what the people wanted to buy. The Hawkins made traditional long rifles until market forces encourged them to make short guns. Long after short guns came in to style gunmakers in the south continued to make long barreled southern rifles well into the 20th century. " if you build it they will come" but only if they want it. Otherwise it dosn't mater how good the construction and workmanship is if people don't want it people won't buy it.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 326
- Reaction score
- 36
I just picked out of the library the Shumway Press edition of "Jaeger Rifles"--the collected articles originally published in "Muzzle Blasts."
Two other qualities of the Jaeger impressed me.
The incredible workmanship of European arms makers compared to even the best of our Pa-Ky rifle makers.
And the wide use of rear sights with two or more folding leaves giving the shooter the ability to immediately adjust his sights to the range of the target.
Two other qualities of the Jaeger impressed me.
The incredible workmanship of European arms makers compared to even the best of our Pa-Ky rifle makers.
And the wide use of rear sights with two or more folding leaves giving the shooter the ability to immediately adjust his sights to the range of the target.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 13,044
- Reaction score
- 7,297
Were the hunting conditions of folks in eastern North America substantially different from those experienced by rifle purchasers in the Germanies?
Granted, folks here probably didn't have their peasantry drive game for them.
Granted, folks here probably didn't have their peasantry drive game for them.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 326
- Reaction score
- 36
Humm--not what sure you're driving at.
Blackelm, you are painting with a broad brush. But in general a short rifle is going to handle differently than a long rifle. No revelation. Some prefer one , some another, for various reasons, and for everyone, their choice may be "superior". However short Germanic rifles of large bore were often used in Europe for short range hunting of driven game, and would lack decent range, regardless of the multi leaf sights. I have an original 28" "jaeger" barrel about .62 caliber with a very fast twist, about 1 turn in the barrel length. Normally such a fast twist barrel is not going to shoot well with much of a powder charge. I'd probably be able to shoot a 42" barreled rifle of the same bore in a 1:66 much more accurately at 100 yards because of flatter trajectory and a longer sight picture. And if I am not looking for light weight as a primary criteria, and do care about a particular era of American history, a jaeger rifle could be unsuitable and therefore inferior and unable to meet my requirements. So you can see that declarations of "better" depend entirely on the viewpoint of the one making the judgment.
So, you are right, and so is everyone else.
So, you are right, and so is everyone else.
While I agree that "better" depends entirely on the viewpoint I can't agree with the statement,
"Normally such a fast twist barrel is not going to shoot well with much of a powder charge."
IMO, this statement is based on our modern barrels where it is valid.
What is overlooked by many when speaking of fast twist barrels is the modern ones almost always have shallow rifling grooves intended for use with elongated bullets.
Unlike our modern barrels, the rifling grooves on the typical Jaeger are usually very deep.
These deep grooves give excellent grip for a roundballs patch making the Jaeger barrel IMO, vary capable with large powder loads.
"Normally such a fast twist barrel is not going to shoot well with much of a powder charge."
IMO, this statement is based on our modern barrels where it is valid.
What is overlooked by many when speaking of fast twist barrels is the modern ones almost always have shallow rifling grooves intended for use with elongated bullets.
Unlike our modern barrels, the rifling grooves on the typical Jaeger are usually very deep.
These deep grooves give excellent grip for a roundballs patch making the Jaeger barrel IMO, vary capable with large powder loads.
Hey Blackelm,
If you were looking at a "nice contemporary .54 caliber, Lancaster" and "The longrifle is overweight and clumsy." you were looking at and handling a longrifle with a straight barrel and that is not an accurate or even a fair comparison at all. I don't doubt that the one you handled was overweight and clumsy, but that's not how rifles were made in the 1700's.
I have an early Lancaster with a 44½" swamped barrel (as opposed to straight or straight-tapered), which is how barrels were made in the 1700's. Straight barrels didn't come into being until Remington started experimenting with deep bore machine-drilling of solid barrel stock in 1840. Before that the barrels were hammer-forge welded around a mandrel, reamed smooth, and then rifled.
A swamped barrel has a slightly hourglass shape. It starts thick at the breech and tapers down until it gets about 8" to 9" from the muzzle and then it gets progressively thicker again. This makes a very nicely balanced barrel that is easy to mount, sight, hold on target, and is a very accurate shooter.
My "very nice Lancaster" is more than a pound lighter (almost a 1½-pounds lighter) than the one you are comparing your Jaeger to and it is beautifully balanced. I also own a much shorter golden age production rifle (Traditions Pennsylvania) with a 40¾" straight barrel. It weighs 9+ pounds and is very nose heavy. It is also nothing at all like the guns the Moravian gunsmiths from Germany made. My Early Lancaster is very faithful to those made prior to the Revolutionary war. It has about a 1/4" offset so that when I mount the gun, my eye is aligned with the sights on the barrel without needing to tilt my head over. It mounts easily and holds very nicely on target.
So, before you start denigrating the American Longrifle and espouse the superiority of the Jaeger (which is a fine rifle), I suggest you get your hands on a rifle that is actually representative of a rifle of the era. A longrifle with a straight or a straight-tapered barrel is nothing like the longrifles of the 1700's. You will not find a swamped barrel on any production rifles and lots of custom rifles are made with straight barrels now because 1.) they are about $150 cheaper, and 2.) it's much easier for a gun builder to inlet a stock for a straight barrel than it is for a swamped barrel.
You really need to get your hands on an American Longrifle that utilizes a swamped barrel. It really is a night and day difference between the two. I suggest you try to get you hands on one and then see what you think.
Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:
If you were looking at a "nice contemporary .54 caliber, Lancaster" and "The longrifle is overweight and clumsy." you were looking at and handling a longrifle with a straight barrel and that is not an accurate or even a fair comparison at all. I don't doubt that the one you handled was overweight and clumsy, but that's not how rifles were made in the 1700's.
I have an early Lancaster with a 44½" swamped barrel (as opposed to straight or straight-tapered), which is how barrels were made in the 1700's. Straight barrels didn't come into being until Remington started experimenting with deep bore machine-drilling of solid barrel stock in 1840. Before that the barrels were hammer-forge welded around a mandrel, reamed smooth, and then rifled.
A swamped barrel has a slightly hourglass shape. It starts thick at the breech and tapers down until it gets about 8" to 9" from the muzzle and then it gets progressively thicker again. This makes a very nicely balanced barrel that is easy to mount, sight, hold on target, and is a very accurate shooter.
My "very nice Lancaster" is more than a pound lighter (almost a 1½-pounds lighter) than the one you are comparing your Jaeger to and it is beautifully balanced. I also own a much shorter golden age production rifle (Traditions Pennsylvania) with a 40¾" straight barrel. It weighs 9+ pounds and is very nose heavy. It is also nothing at all like the guns the Moravian gunsmiths from Germany made. My Early Lancaster is very faithful to those made prior to the Revolutionary war. It has about a 1/4" offset so that when I mount the gun, my eye is aligned with the sights on the barrel without needing to tilt my head over. It mounts easily and holds very nicely on target.
So, before you start denigrating the American Longrifle and espouse the superiority of the Jaeger (which is a fine rifle), I suggest you get your hands on a rifle that is actually representative of a rifle of the era. A longrifle with a straight or a straight-tapered barrel is nothing like the longrifles of the 1700's. You will not find a swamped barrel on any production rifles and lots of custom rifles are made with straight barrels now because 1.) they are about $150 cheaper, and 2.) it's much easier for a gun builder to inlet a stock for a straight barrel than it is for a swamped barrel.
You really need to get your hands on an American Longrifle that utilizes a swamped barrel. It really is a night and day difference between the two. I suggest you try to get you hands on one and then see what you think.
Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 326
- Reaction score
- 36
Good point. I have my hands on a lot of swamped barreled PA rifles. Some have a dynamic balance that is superb. Others, even with a swamped barrel, and remember there are a lot of contours available in swamped barrels, are less dynamic.
The Lancaster I referenced had a swamped barrel and still weighed 9 pounds.
I'm not denigrating the Pa-Ky rifle. I hunt with them often but something along the lines of the Jaeger or Jim Chambers "English Gentleman's" rifle would be a lot more practical in the field. Give it a squared off, black partridge front sight (rather than a small silver sliver) and a rear sight with one leaf standing and the two folding leaves adjusted for 150 and 200 yards and you'd really have something.
The Lancaster I referenced had a swamped barrel and still weighed 9 pounds.
I'm not denigrating the Pa-Ky rifle. I hunt with them often but something along the lines of the Jaeger or Jim Chambers "English Gentleman's" rifle would be a lot more practical in the field. Give it a squared off, black partridge front sight (rather than a small silver sliver) and a rear sight with one leaf standing and the two folding leaves adjusted for 150 and 200 yards and you'd really have something.
Well in the first place, a .54 caliber Jaeger rifle would've been considered a very light projectile by the Germanic standards of the 18th century. .58 and .62 were much more common and are also much more common on extant rifles from the period today. Even larger calibers existed and still exist.
Second, the long rifle in America was NOT regressive. At the time of the "birth" of the American longrifle the Germanic states were using long barreled rifles for target use (with faster than 1:48 twist in many cases) :wink: . What the Germanic rifle makers did when they arrived here was to adapt the Germanic target rifles by lightening them, for use in America.
A question would be WHY if they were so "superior" did the rifles change from the Jaeger to the longrifle?
Style? The most expensive component difference between the Jaeger and the longrifle was the barrel, and the longrifle in the Colonies would probably have cost more than a shorter rifle in the same caliber...so if no advantage they would be paying more money WHY again? Clearly....there were advantages.
Well first, is the Jaeger superior? It tosses a very heavy ball and needs a large amount of powder. Its shortness is advantageous when loading from horseback. European hunting of the day meant hounds to the deer, the hunters on horseback until the deer went into thick cover (tired), then the hunters would dismount and approach IF a shot didn't present itself from horseback. Finish with a hunting sword if needed.
AH but what about the Colonies???
First, primal forests, not the Germanic forests which are much closer to forests in North America today. Second, lead and powder expensive and not nearly as easily obtained as in the Germanic states and their neighbors. So one cannot afford to toss a .610 ball with 110 grains of powder or more...when the cost of launching a .530 ball gave the hunter 8 more shots per pound of lead, and about 40 more shots per pound of powder...and still harvested the game.
Style of hunting...in the Colonies and their frontier, yes the hunters used horses, but did not chase with hounds and while mounted, but instead hunted on foot, approaching a likely area perhaps on horse, then going pedestrian. When reading accounts of how a hunter staked out a salt lick and killed around 16 deer in less than nine hours, he wasn't riding hither and yon doing so. The game wasn't exhausted either...you had to hit the animal in the right spot, so it did not go very far.
Ever wonder why IF the Jaeger rifle with it's large powder load and huge ball was sooo superior, the Jaegers carried hunting swords to finish off the game? Surely a superior rifle would dispatch the game better than it's lowly, inferior descendant, the American longrifle. :shocked2: YET the hunting sword disappears from the gear of the American hunter. Hunting swords were standard gear of the Jaeger, and a Jaeger was form of Yoeman, not a noble, the hunting sword was a tool, and was carried because it was needed.
:hmm:
So without hunting and/or loading from horseback, the shorter rifle in the primal forest become less of an advantage, and then add the fact that advancing the length of the sight plane does aid in accuracy with iron sights....then throw in the shrinking of caliber when the larger game diminishes, less bison and elk, so less punch needed. Thus you have the factors that pushed the development of the long rifle. It is no coincidence that the caliber of the average rifle in the East is .45 or smaller at the same time when when the largest game is whitetail, for the elk and bison have all been killed or pushed West.
West of the Mississippi in plains areas and where you have brown bear species, as well as bison and elk, where one is mounted and hunting at the same time more often than in the East, of course you have a return to rifles more suited to mounted men and to large, dangerous game.
The Corps of Discovery entered the West with a much heavier caliber than the common rifles in the States .54 instead of .45, and some of the documented rifles during the fur trade were larger caliber still. Obviously the parameters of hunting were very different than in the East.
Of course by the 19th century powder and lead were not nearly as expensive nor hard to obtain, but in the East, what would be the point of going larger? You might as well use a really accurate gun that doesn't waste lead and powder to get the job done, and doesn't beat up your shoulder. Out West...those Eastern guns wouldn't get the job done...and it was done in a different manner...hence the change, back to what basically amounted to an American style of Jaeger... the plains rifle.
LD
Second, the long rifle in America was NOT regressive. At the time of the "birth" of the American longrifle the Germanic states were using long barreled rifles for target use (with faster than 1:48 twist in many cases) :wink: . What the Germanic rifle makers did when they arrived here was to adapt the Germanic target rifles by lightening them, for use in America.
A question would be WHY if they were so "superior" did the rifles change from the Jaeger to the longrifle?
Style? The most expensive component difference between the Jaeger and the longrifle was the barrel, and the longrifle in the Colonies would probably have cost more than a shorter rifle in the same caliber...so if no advantage they would be paying more money WHY again? Clearly....there were advantages.
Well first, is the Jaeger superior? It tosses a very heavy ball and needs a large amount of powder. Its shortness is advantageous when loading from horseback. European hunting of the day meant hounds to the deer, the hunters on horseback until the deer went into thick cover (tired), then the hunters would dismount and approach IF a shot didn't present itself from horseback. Finish with a hunting sword if needed.
AH but what about the Colonies???
First, primal forests, not the Germanic forests which are much closer to forests in North America today. Second, lead and powder expensive and not nearly as easily obtained as in the Germanic states and their neighbors. So one cannot afford to toss a .610 ball with 110 grains of powder or more...when the cost of launching a .530 ball gave the hunter 8 more shots per pound of lead, and about 40 more shots per pound of powder...and still harvested the game.
Style of hunting...in the Colonies and their frontier, yes the hunters used horses, but did not chase with hounds and while mounted, but instead hunted on foot, approaching a likely area perhaps on horse, then going pedestrian. When reading accounts of how a hunter staked out a salt lick and killed around 16 deer in less than nine hours, he wasn't riding hither and yon doing so. The game wasn't exhausted either...you had to hit the animal in the right spot, so it did not go very far.
Ever wonder why IF the Jaeger rifle with it's large powder load and huge ball was sooo superior, the Jaegers carried hunting swords to finish off the game? Surely a superior rifle would dispatch the game better than it's lowly, inferior descendant, the American longrifle. :shocked2: YET the hunting sword disappears from the gear of the American hunter. Hunting swords were standard gear of the Jaeger, and a Jaeger was form of Yoeman, not a noble, the hunting sword was a tool, and was carried because it was needed.
:hmm:
So without hunting and/or loading from horseback, the shorter rifle in the primal forest become less of an advantage, and then add the fact that advancing the length of the sight plane does aid in accuracy with iron sights....then throw in the shrinking of caliber when the larger game diminishes, less bison and elk, so less punch needed. Thus you have the factors that pushed the development of the long rifle. It is no coincidence that the caliber of the average rifle in the East is .45 or smaller at the same time when when the largest game is whitetail, for the elk and bison have all been killed or pushed West.
West of the Mississippi in plains areas and where you have brown bear species, as well as bison and elk, where one is mounted and hunting at the same time more often than in the East, of course you have a return to rifles more suited to mounted men and to large, dangerous game.
The Corps of Discovery entered the West with a much heavier caliber than the common rifles in the States .54 instead of .45, and some of the documented rifles during the fur trade were larger caliber still. Obviously the parameters of hunting were very different than in the East.
Of course by the 19th century powder and lead were not nearly as expensive nor hard to obtain, but in the East, what would be the point of going larger? You might as well use a really accurate gun that doesn't waste lead and powder to get the job done, and doesn't beat up your shoulder. Out West...those Eastern guns wouldn't get the job done...and it was done in a different manner...hence the change, back to what basically amounted to an American style of Jaeger... the plains rifle.
LD
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 13,044
- Reaction score
- 7,297
blackelm said:
Thinking that form follows function (more so than fashion).
Asking: Were the hunting conditions of folks in eastern North America substantially different from those experienced by rifle purchasers in the Germanies?
thecapgunkid
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2014
- Messages
- 342
- Reaction score
- 6
Hey, Claude....we need a forum convention!!!
I'd love to sit around once a year and just gab with these guys because I am lucky that I am retiring and have the time to go through the topics.
I'd love to meet these guys.
What stopped you when you thought about that??
I'd love to sit around once a year and just gab with these guys because I am lucky that I am retiring and have the time to go through the topics.
I'd love to meet these guys.
What stopped you when you thought about that??
I think in the AWI some Hessian troops were called Jaegers but whether they used muskets or jaeger rifles- I have no idea. I read that one British officer claimed that the rifles being made in America were superior to anything he had ever seen.
So....some folks feel the longer barrel was just a matter of fashion and others are wondering if it offered some type of functional advantage. One thing was a smaller bore, did that have any influence in longer barrels? In other words if you made a long arm in 45 to 50 caliber the longer barrels were more accurate for some reason?
Off hand, my "gut" feeling is the German gunsmiths in PA were pretty practical people. I feel there must have been a functional reason for longer barrels but that's just my feeling, I have no reliable documentation either way.
I'm still wondering about the quality of American black powder versus European. If the American black powder was being turned out in small shops of some of dubious quality while in Europe it was all regulated and of high, reliable quality, if that was an issue. Just wondering on all this???
So....some folks feel the longer barrel was just a matter of fashion and others are wondering if it offered some type of functional advantage. One thing was a smaller bore, did that have any influence in longer barrels? In other words if you made a long arm in 45 to 50 caliber the longer barrels were more accurate for some reason?
Off hand, my "gut" feeling is the German gunsmiths in PA were pretty practical people. I feel there must have been a functional reason for longer barrels but that's just my feeling, I have no reliable documentation either way.
I'm still wondering about the quality of American black powder versus European. If the American black powder was being turned out in small shops of some of dubious quality while in Europe it was all regulated and of high, reliable quality, if that was an issue. Just wondering on all this???
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,808
- Reaction score
- 8
From what I gather in my far from expert opinion. Wasn't most of the 18th C hunting in "Germany" either of the Driven game or behind dogs variety? For driven game I can see how a shorter gun that swings well would be useful for shots at largely running game.
When hunting with dogs I can tell you from personal experience that you're mostly going to end up with 2 situations. A close quick shot at a bayed animal where you don't want to close in too much or it will take off again and a short quick pointing gun works well, or wading into the melee when the dogs have caught and are holding the animal which is where, I believe, the hunting sword(knife) would be used. Either way the majority of the hunt is going to be spent running after the dogs with the gun slung. I think a 46" long barrel would be impossibly awkward in this situation.
While hunting in America was more of the one guy stalking slowly through the woods or sitting and watching a food/water source. So longer, more relaxed aimed shots possibly from a rest would be expected, making a heavier longer gun more appropriate.
Just a thought.
When hunting with dogs I can tell you from personal experience that you're mostly going to end up with 2 situations. A close quick shot at a bayed animal where you don't want to close in too much or it will take off again and a short quick pointing gun works well, or wading into the melee when the dogs have caught and are holding the animal which is where, I believe, the hunting sword(knife) would be used. Either way the majority of the hunt is going to be spent running after the dogs with the gun slung. I think a 46" long barrel would be impossibly awkward in this situation.
While hunting in America was more of the one guy stalking slowly through the woods or sitting and watching a food/water source. So longer, more relaxed aimed shots possibly from a rest would be expected, making a heavier longer gun more appropriate.
Just a thought.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 326
- Reaction score
- 36
Well, Loyalist Dave, I agree with some of your thoughts but not all.
I disagree with you on CALIBER. PA-KY were of bigger caliber than you "think".
I have in front of me a beautiful new book from the Kentucky Rifle Association entitled "An Intimate Look at The American Longrifle." These are the examples of the finest Pa-Ky longrifles in prized collections.
The last two pages of the book are devoted to pictured rifle dimensions. Here are the first 10 bore sizes as measured. Remember, these rifles are the pick of the crop in terms of quality.
.583
.535
.530
.547
.508
.460
.467
.523
.612
.470
.558
Interesting, eh?
I disagree with you on CALIBER. PA-KY were of bigger caliber than you "think".
I have in front of me a beautiful new book from the Kentucky Rifle Association entitled "An Intimate Look at The American Longrifle." These are the examples of the finest Pa-Ky longrifles in prized collections.
The last two pages of the book are devoted to pictured rifle dimensions. Here are the first 10 bore sizes as measured. Remember, these rifles are the pick of the crop in terms of quality.
.583
.535
.530
.547
.508
.460
.467
.523
.612
.470
.558
Interesting, eh?
Similar threads
