Jaeger vs Longrifle

[Artificer]

Hi Dan,

I first heard about shooting over a blanket of snow or sheet, I think it was in the mid 70's and was in "The Gunsmith of Williamsburg" movie? I honestly did not know whether or not it was true as I had only shot muzzle loaders for about 3 years at the time. However, in the 80's, I did run across it again and it was not in Ned Robert's book, though I honestly can't recall where I read it, though it was supposed to have been an 18th century source. It was one of those things I read and for some reason stuck in my mind for all these years. As I already mentioned, we know today that the powder is consumed in a much shorter barrel than 42" to 48," so perhaps that is why it was not important enough to remember where I read it?

In more recent years it has come to light that Germanic, Swiss, Dutch, Czech (and possibly some other) sporting and target rifle barrels were made in lengths up to 50" back on the continent in the late 17th century and early 18th century. Unfortunately, it almost never lists the rate of twist in these barrels and many if not most of the original extant rifles also do not mention the rifling twist in the sources or advertisements.

What you mentioned about the rate of rifling in some Jaeger rifles being 1 turn in the barrel, sort of "jelled" in my mind. I do not know if most continental rifles were rifled that way, but if it was common, then we probably have the real reason that 42" to 44" barrels were "more accurate" in the 18th century. The longer the barrel, the slower the twist and a 1:24/30 twist for a 24 to 30 inch Jaeger barrel would not have been as accurate as a 1:42/44 twist in the longer length barrels. When Ezekiel Baker won the accuracy trials for the P1800 Infantry Rifle (also including against some American Rifles), that in later years came to be called by his name, we know the rate of twist in those barrels were 1:120. We know the average rate of twist in the shorter 32" to 36" original Hawken barrels was 1:48 twist.

So it may be that barrel length was not the real reason that the Long Rifle was determined to be more accurate, but RATHER they were more accurate than many Jaegers because Long Rifles had a slower twist in the rifling than many Jaegers?

Gus

 

[Stophel]

I would think that it would be helpful to the "Twist Debate" if someone who had access to original early American rifles would measure the twists... We cannot just assume that they had "slower" twists.

I only have two old rifles. One is a German rifle from about 1830. Around .65 caliber and very short, with a 16" barrel. Best I can ascertain, the twist is about one turn in 20". The other rifle is a Massachusetts gun with a 41" barrel, probably from around 1820, and about .58 caliber. Now, it's very difficult to measure accurately because the rifling is worn almost to nothing, but it is about one turn in 16".... when they were supposed to have known better... :hmm:

 

[Artificer]

I would think that it would be helpful to the "Twist Debate" if someone who had access to original early American rifles would measure the twists... We cannot just assume that they had "slower" twists.

I very much agree and that's why I put the qualifier about "if the twist rates were slower on Long Rifles vs Jaegers."

Gus

 

[hanshi]

If anyone believes unburned powder blows out the muzzle and lands on the ground, just have them make a pile of black powder and then fire a gun at it at near contact distance. Voila! Instant enlightenment.

 

[nkbj]

Heh, even a bird as first cousin to a lizard watches the cat. The lizards even watched May Bell while she watched them. Now we live noirth of lizard country and the birds are watching her. Critters get hard to hit depending upon their cultured understanding of threats. They learn. My hypothesis is that their predators learned as well and wanted longer barrels.

 

[thecapgunkid]

Lemme axe yoo dis...

You are dependent on your rifle for foodies. You probably shoot from a rest...you know...one shot, one kill...

For many folks out there, an ounce of perception is worth a truckload of truth.

Some guy walks up and tells you that, from the rest, the longer barrel burns more of the charge, needs less, sights more accurately and looks macaroni.

You only have four or five pounds to your name, prefer to shoot from the rest whether or not you are jacking the deer, carry the longer rifle only for short bursts of hunting rather than all day every day, and the rest of the guys have a long rifle.

You don't have to worry about being historically correct, and have no idea that you are setting a living history trend. Maybe you do and maybe you don't know James Fenimore Cooper, so you probably have a different view of everything from Indians to good guns.

I'd float my stick with the long rifle guys.

What I don't understand, in owning one of the longer rifles, why I want to build a Jaeger next.

 

[Grumpa]

looks macaroni.

That would probably do it for most folks!

 

[Artificer]

looks macaroni.

That would probably do it for most folks!

:rotf: There is a lot of truth in that! :thumbsup:

 

[Artificer]

There is no doubt that many of even the plainest Long Rifles are more pleasing to the eye than similarly plain Jaegers. (I promise I am not trying to start another Golden Mean discussion. :wink: )

I have personally seen it proven time and time again that a "prettier" rifle will often be shot better by a person than a plainer or even ugly gun, even if the plainer or uglier gun is actually more accurate.

So of course I understand this part of your post as well. :thumbsup:

Gus

 

[Grumpa]

What I don't understand, in owning one of the longer rifles, why I want to build a Jaeger next.

Because you can...because they are HC/PC ...and because they are beautiful rifles in their own right.

I have no doubt that some of them made their way through the forests of Pennsylvania and upstate New York.

Some of the high-end Jaegers rank among the most beautiful of rifles.

 

[Artificer]

Dan,

With GREAT appreciation to Spence (our Forum GURU and "E.F. Hutton" for period documentation) who provided a source and steered me to a chapter in W. Cleator's 1791 Essay on Shooting, I found an 18th century reference for spreading a cloth in front of a barrel to check for unburned powder.

"To determine this, a number of experiments were made by a committee of the Royal Society, so long ago as the year 1743 and by these it was shewn, that, when a barrel was shortened so much that the ball was placed before the powder was upon a level of the muzzle, the unfired powder, was collected from the discharge by means of a cloth spread before the piece, weighed but one twelfth the charge."

Edited to add: IF I correctly interpret his meaning, then most of the powder in that charge burned even though the ball was right below the muzzle of the barrel.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

At the end of the paragraph of that quote:

"”¦”¦”¦And we may therefore safely conclude, that the powder is completely inflamed before the ball or shot arrives at the mouth of the shortest barrel ever employed.”

Gus

 

[flaming canvas]

Dan,

With GREAT appreciation to Spence (our Forum GURU and "E.F. Hutton" for period documentation) who provided a source and steered me to a chapter in W. Cleator's 1791 Essay on Shooting, I found an 18th century reference for spreading a cloth in front of a barrel to check for unburned powder.

"To determine this, a number of experiments were made by a committee of the Royal Society, so long ago as the year 1743 and by these it was shewn, that, when a barrel was shortened so much that the ball was placed before the powder was upon a level of the muzzle, the unfired powder, was collected from the discharge by means of a cloth spread before the piece, weighed but one twelfth the charge."

Edited to add: IF I correctly interpret his meaning, then most of the powder in that charge burned even though the ball was right below the muzzle of the barrel.

Gus

I think it says that they cut the barrel down to where the seated ball was flush with the end of it. They collected the unburned powder and it was 1/12 of the charge.
Since the powder would burn in the air I think they reached the wrong conclusion about the importance of barrel length.

 

[flaming canvas]

Many years ago at the Ft. Davis rondy I was in a shoot that was to take a small cup of water off the top of a balloon without breaking the ballon. I was shooting a .54 Renegade with 50 gr 2f. At my first shot my balloon popped. So did the next one in line that was 5 feet to the side. Range about 15 yards.

If it wasn't unburned powder, I have no idea what it was.

 

[azmntman]

Maybe the marble broke in half or shattered at ignition? :blah:

sorry :redface:

 

[nchawkeye]

It was powder, not necessarily unburned though...You can take a flintlock, load it with powder and no ball and pop balloons out to 15-20 yards...Over half of black powder is residue, after ignition and much of it is blown out the muzzle...

The only way to tell if it is unburned is to collect it and see if it ignites again...

 

[Dphar]

Many years ago at the Ft. Davis rondy I was in a shoot that was to take a small cup of water off the top of a balloon without breaking the ballon. I was shooting a .54 Renegade with 50 gr 2f. At my first shot my balloon popped. So did the next one in line that was 5 feet to the side. Range about 15 yards.

If it wasn't unburned powder, I have no idea what it was.

Try shooting some onion skin paper at 15 yards and see what hits the paper...
15 yards is 45 feet...
Dan

 

[tenngun]

Would the shock of the ball on the tin cup of water been enough force to pop the balloon? 50 grains at 15 yards would be about equal force as 100 grains at 100 yards. Enough to put paid on a deer. :idunno:

 

[Artificer]

Dan,

With GREAT appreciation to Spence (our Forum GURU and "E.F. Hutton" for period documentation) who provided a source and steered me to a chapter in W. Cleator's 1791 Essay on Shooting, I found an 18th century reference for spreading a cloth in front of a barrel to check for unburned powder.

"To determine this, a number of experiments were made by a committee of the Royal Society, so long ago as the year 1743 and by these it was shewn, that, when a barrel was shortened so much that the ball was placed before the powder was upon a level of the muzzle, the unfired powder, was collected from the discharge by means of a cloth spread before the piece, weighed but one twelfth the charge."

Edited to add: IF I correctly interpret his meaning, then most of the powder in that charge burned even though the ball was right below the muzzle of the barrel.

Gus

I think it says that they cut the barrel down to where the seated ball was flush with the end of it. They collected the unburned powder and it was 1/12 of the charge.
Since the powder would burn in the air I think they reached the wrong conclusion about the importance of barrel length.

Black powder does burn open in the air, but there is no significant force when it does other than generated heat. There is no significant gas pressure generated like that though. To generate pressure, there has to be some kind of resistance to the powder burning.

Anyone who has ever fired 50 grains of powder only in a ML flint or percussion rifle barrel with no projectile, patch, nor paper in front of the powder - knows you get at most a whoompf sound that does not sound anything like a rifle shot. By doubling that powder charge to 100 grains, it sounds more like a rifle shot, but not quite. Tightly pack some paper wadding over that 100 grains of powder and the sound is a lot closer to an actual rifle shot. This is because of the larger powder charge and the resistance of the wadded paper causing the powder to burn under resistance and has some gas pressure develop. However, a 50 grain charge of powder with a PRB is a rifle shot and sounds like it, because there is even more gas pressure from the powder burning with the resistance of the PRB, even though there is half as much powder as a 100 grain paper wadded blank charge.

If there was no ball or wad over a powder charge in a short barrel, the only resistance to the powder would be the interior surface of the barrel and not a lot of gas pressure involved, though there would be enough to move the barrel if it wasn't secured. How far and how fast the powder would drive the unsecured barrel (like a slow rocket) would depend on the weight of the barrel and powder charge.

However when there is resistance of a ball over a short barrel, then the powder burns a tiny bit slower, but builds up gas pressure until the pressure is enough to force the ball to move. (This still happens so fast no human can see the difference, though.) The gas pressure causes a more complete combustion of the powder and is the reason that only 1/12th the powder charge was found in front of the barrel. The rest of the powder burned inside the short barrel while it worked up the gas pressure and heat overcomes the resistance of the ball and force it out the barrel.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

The rest of the powder burned inside the short barrel while it worked up the gas pressure and heat overcomes the resistance of the ball and force it out the barrel.

Gus

Wow, that was poor grammar. What I meant to say was:

The rest of the powder burned up inside the short barrel, while it worked up the gas pressure to force the ball out of the barrel.

Gus