Long vs. Short barrel

[tr07416]

Sorry Roundball,

Kings Mt. & Cowpens, both SC, but different battles, different places.

TR

 

[Tumblernotch]

Sorry. They were two separate battles. Kings Mountain was fought on October 7, 1780 between American militia from west of the mountains under Sevier, Shelby and others against American Loyalists (Tories) under Major Patrick Ferguson. Cowpens was fought on January 17, 1781 between a mixed force of American Continental and State troops under Gen. Daniel Morgan and a mixed force of British Regulars and Tories under Col. Banastre Tarleton. They were both in what is now Cherokee County, SC. though.
:thumbsup:

 

[roundball]

Thanks for the correction...visitied that battlefied area in the late 60's right after getting married...somehow got it in my head that it was one in the same battle...wonder if they were close physically as it seemed to be one geographic area we were touring and that's what I remembered over the years

 

[Tumblernotch]

I've never been to either battlefield, but I knew they were close. So I checked and apparently they're in the same county, Cherokee, right on the NC border. My 5th Great Grandfather was a rifleman in a Virginia Militia company and escorted prisoners from the Cowpens battle to Mecklenburg Co., VA.

I'd like to tour that area some time. I've been in the general area years ago, but have never been to those fields.

 

[tg]

"I was surprised to learn that the longer barrels on early American firearms were more for aesthetics than for funtion"

I think we need to get back to the original post, in the past people thought that the longer barrels were better whether they were all justified by true ballistic science is another matter, from early smoothbore trade guns up past 1800 long barrels were the norm most likely because they thought it was better, there were also shorter guns during this period, but longer barrels were more common in many places.

 

[Dphar]

There is no pat answer to the accuracy based on barrel length question. How did he determine that 24" was the cut off? Did he test a barrel by cutting if off inch by inch? Even this would prove little except how that barrel performed. It is possible that at 24" the barrel might no longer produce the needed velocity for best accuracy.
The longer sight radius and the better holding characteristics of the longer barrel are important factors in how well a shooter can hit targets.
With the powders available in the 18th century longer barrels would *probably* give better performance velocity wise. They would "shoot harder" with the same powder.
The idea that the longer barrel reducing velocity likely stems from 22 rimfire which WILL loose velocity in long barrels, over 20 or so inches due to the fast burn powders used. This does not apply to BP. Longer barrels invariably produce more velocity unless the charge weight is very light for the bore size.
For one thing the RB moves away from the powder easily and this gives the powder less time to burn do to the rapid acceleration thus the longer barrel gives more time for gas expansion.

Dan

 

[smallmouth]

Before the days of cronographs -- who knew? I think it is amazing that they hit as close to the mark without the benefits of testing equiptment. Also, we learn from the bench rest community that there are bizillion variables in all of this. So . . . to really get an accurate picture, really hundreds of tests would have to be done to get in all the possible combinations of variables. -- One I would suggest would be -- what was their actual powder like in manufacture? Probably not as consistant as picking up of Goex today in Georgia or Pennsylvania. O.K, then if you dirty up the powder a bit -- then how does this affect the velocity? As you can see this is really becomes a very complicated question. I have just been surprised when I actually did my own testing how different my results have been to "what everybody" is saying.

Sirjohn

 

[BrownBear]

I just read in "The Gunsmith of Grenville County" that beyond 24 inches, accuracy is not really increased. I was surprised to learn that the longer barrels on early American firearms were more for aesthetics than for funtion. Could this be true? Why the heck would anyone want to lug around a really long gun when a short one would do just as good a job? Also, why does Green Mountain produce drop-in barrels at such long lengths (36" & 42")? The original barrel on my T/C Renegade was only 26".

For me today it's a mix of a aesthetics and function. The longer barrels give a longer sighter radius and push that front sight way out there where my old eyes can see it easier. They also add a lot of weight out front in the case of straight barrels, and this "barrel heavy" feel can be a real boon when I'm playing range rat.

But shorter barrels are lots easier to lug around on hunts in tight quarters, not only because they are less prone to tangling in the brush, but also because they tend to shift the gun's COG back toward your hands for faster mounting and swinging. Frankly they're lots harder to shoot on a range without that weight out front, but much faster when you need to be fast.

As for ballistics, I don't give two hoots and a snort what the numbers say at the muzzle or how much powder is "wasted" on the ground in front of you. I look at differences in what's delivered at the point of impact.

RB's lose their velocity quickly, and the differences in velocities delivered by a short barrel and a long one out at 100 yards is miniscule, even if the differences look impressive at the muzzle. With an 80 grain charge of 3f under a 54 cal ball we're only talking gains of 70 fps and 75 fpe at 100 yards for lugging around a 43" barrel rather than a 28".

 

[Golfswithwolves]

I don't know if there is any difference of significance in the ballistics of long vs. short barrels. I like long barrels mostly because they feel better, are more balanced, hang on target better for me. Aesthetics also play a role, as in my opinion the long barrels look "right" :thumbsup: whereas short ones look like something is wrong with them.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

The balance point is affected by the type of barrel as much as by the length. A 44" swamped barrel will balance closer to the trigger guard than a straight or even a tapered barrel half stock will. The longer sighting plane is of value and the longer barrel does allow full exploitation of the powder charge. There isn't much point in loading it if you can't actually burn it efficiently.

I love my Hawken and wouldn't even consider giving it up, but there is no way it carries with anything like the ease of my long rifles. A short barreled rifle with a barrel heavy enough to hang well when aiming (my Hawken for example) can't carry well because its mass is too far forward. The balance point is therefore so far forward that a one handed carry is awkward since the rifles balances near the entry pipe. A swamped barrel long rifle carries further back and is much easier in the wrist in my experience.

 

[Galen Futtrell]

"WOW" if barrel lingth doesn't matter,I think I will hunt with a pistol from nowone. :hmm:

 

[sproulman]

i had old book on testing barrel lengths.

it was info for my HAWKINS T/C .50CAL.

they started at 36 inchs and ended at 28 inchs as being best length.

they also said 70grs of 2f with .490 ball was best and going above it was really not improvement much.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

"WOW" if barrel lingth doesn't matter,I think I will hunt with a pistol from nowone. :hmm:

I do not understand how you could possibly reach this conclusion from my post. I have never made such a statement and do not believe that any sapient being would.
Perhaps you have been hitting the jug a little too hard this weekend or your pipe tobacco is of the magical variety? Judging by the spelling errors, this likely is the case. Do be careful with that pistol and try to remember--the ball comes out the hole in the end of the barrel. :v

 

[Zonie]

To all:
I'm not sure why I need to explain some things to the long time members of this forum but folks should realize that the Forum Computer thinks it needs to say
"In response to someone " at the top of each post.
Just because it says that does not mean the poster was actually talking to the person the computer named.

Everyone should read what is written in new posts and then ask themselves, "Does that response sound like it was meant for me? Is it directed towards something in my post?"

If the answer is no then just take it for what it's worth and please don't attack the person that made it.

 

[Dphar]

Before the days of cronographs -- who knew? I think it is amazing that they hit as close to the mark without the benefits of testing equiptment. Also, we learn from the bench rest community that there are bizillion variables in all of this. So . . . to really get an accurate picture, really hundreds of tests would have to be done to get in all the possible combinations of variables. -- One I would suggest would be -- what was their actual powder like in manufacture? Probably not as consistant as picking up of Goex today in Georgia or Pennsylvania. O.K, then if you dirty up the powder a bit -- then how does this affect the velocity? As you can see this is really becomes a very complicated question. I have just been surprised when I actually did my own testing how different my results have been to "what everybody" is saying.

Sirjohn

They knew by trajectory, penetration etc.
There was wide variations in powder quality. To complex to type here.
BP as we know it, even the lower grade stuff, did not appear until 1780s in Europe and note hear as made in country until DuPont moved in.
Really good powder like the Swiss did not appear until after that. The really good stuff did not appear until after 1860 I suspect.
You cannot "dirty up" modern powder that is compressed and broken into grains and make it like uncompressed, wet "granulated" (pushed through a screen, usually by hand, when a heavy paste) powder made with impure materials.
Like I said its too complex for me to type in here.
Variations in powder can make significant differences in your "shooting experience". I have had lots of Moosic made Goex years ago that were so bad that 1/4 to 1/2 the powder was useless. Current production is much better.
Dan

 

[Zoar]

The original post said -- 'beyond 24 inch barrels, not much increase in accuracy'.

Yea. That is about right.

We can split the hairs on this many different way, but that approximate statement is approximately correct.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

The original post said -- 'beyond 24 inch barrels, not much increase in accuracy'.

Yea. That is about right.

We can split the hairs on this many different way, but that approximate statement is approximately correct.

I think that you should read the second post in this thread.

The longer barrel allows a longer sighting plane which aids in improving accuracy. It also allows for more powder to be burnt thus increasing velocity and extending range somewhat. Longer barrels also "hang" steadier which contributes to accuracy.
An approximate statement that is approximately correct is at best an approximation that could be considered to be approximately in error if one was the sort who dealt in approximations in the first place.

 

[Claude Mathis]

Everyone should read what is written in new posts and then ask themselves, "Does that response sound like it was meant for me? Is it directed towards something in my post?"

And, if people would use the QUOTE feature, as I have done here, this would never be a problem. But, please don't quote a full age of text and simply say, "me too". Quote only the specific part you are addressing.

(we now return you to your regularly scheduled debate) :wink:

 

[Zoar]

I shoot all lengths of barrels and guns, I find the design of the sights has a greater impact on my accuracy with said gun than how far apart the front sight is from the rear sight. Albeit, the theory that greater distance between sights assists the shooters eye is certainly valid. Bottom line if my life was on the line and I had to choose a tradional flintlock rifle that I would feel most confident that I would shoot it most accurately at 75 yards I would choose a 31-36 inch barrel, set trigger, 36 caliber with GPR sights, over say a 24 inch barrel, single trigger, in 54 caliber with Hawkins sights. Yet that said, how much more accurate would I shoot? Probably a little bit.

One of my favorite guns to shoot has a 24 inch barrel and is 54 caliber. I am always astonished at how accuartely I can shoot this flinter. Sometimes theory and reality are approximately not logical... nor linear.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Bottom line if my life was on the line and I had to choose a tradional flintlock rifle that I would feel most confident that I would shoot it most accurately at 75 yards I would choose a 31-36 inch barrel, set trigger, 36 caliber with GPR sights, over say a 24 inch barrel, single trigger, in 54 caliber with Hawkins sights. Yet that said, how much more accurate would I shoot? Probably a little bit.

One of my favorite guns to shoot has a 24 inch barrel and is 54 caliber. I am always astonished at how accuartely I can shoot this flinter. Sometimes theory and reality are approximately not logical... nor linear.

If my life was on the line, I think I would want to be shooting something a lot more powerful than a .36 caliber bunny gun......